From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #63 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, February 5 1998 Volume 02 : Number 063 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:18:44 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: WT: Trie surrenders (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:48:46 -0800 From: Ken Chafin To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: WT: Trie surrenders Clinton friend Trie surrenders at Dulles ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ International fugitive Charles Yah Lin Trie, a longtime friend of President Clinton's who was charged last week with illegally funneling campaign cash to the Democratic National Committee, surrendered yesterday to FBI agents at Washington Dulles International Airport. Mr. Trie was immediately taken before U.S. Magistrate Theresa Buchanan in federal court in Alexandria, Va. He was believed to have fled to China to avoid capture by the FBI in the Justice Department's campaign-finance investigation. His surrender, after a flight from Paris, followed negotiations involving the Justice Department's campaign-finance task force and Mr. Trie's Washington attorney, Reid H. Weingarten. The department offered no details on any agreement or information on whether Mr. Trie had agreed to cooperate in the investigation. Justice Department officials said Mr. Trie had been in Macao, a Portuguese colony due to revert to Chinese rule next year. His surprise return fueled speculation that a deal was in the works, although Justice Department officials warned against "premature assumptions." Mr. Trie was released on a $200,000 personal recognizance bond. He agreed to turn over his passport and the deeds to two properties in Little Rock, Ark. He also promised to confine his travel to Washington, Virginia Beach and Little Rock. Mr. Trie will be arraigned tomorrow before U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington. Mr. Trie's Jan. 29 indictment was the first returned by the task force, which has been investigating campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election since November 1996. He was charged with Antonio Pan, a onetime Lippo Group executive and close friend of former Commerce Department and DNC official John Huang's, with obstructing justice by ordering an employee to destroy documents subpoenaed by a federal grand jury and a Senate committee. They also were accused of conspiring to defraud the government by preventing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from making accurate public reports of the amounts and sources of political donations to federal candidates and their political committees. The indictment also charged the two men with wire fraud in their transfer of money from U.S. banks to reimburse contributors. Mr. Trie also is charged with three counts of aiding and abetting the filing of false statements to the FEC. Mr. Trie ran a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock near the Arkansas State House where he first met Bill Clinton, then governor. In an interview last year with NBC News in Shanghai, Mr. Trie --who now owns Daihatsu International Trading Corp. -- boasted he could hide in Asia for 10 years and had no plans to return to the United States. Last night, Steptoe & Johnson, the firm of Mr. Trie's attorney, issued a statement noting that the defendant voluntarily returned to Washington. "Because of this act, any questions about his being a fugitive from justice or a spy for a foreign power should be put to rest," the statement said. "We are confident that when the media frenzy and political savagery associated with this case abate and this matter is aired in court, Mr. Trie will be fully vindicated." Federal arrest warrants were issued for both men on the day of the indictment, which said Mr. Trie, 49, and Mr. Pan, 50, illegally diverted money to the DNC through "straw donors" who were then secretly reimbursed in cash by the two men. Mr. Trie is accused of funneling more than $600,000 to the DNC. The indictment said much of the money came from foreign sources. The indictment also said Mr. Trie defrauded the DNC by accepting a trusteeship in the organization, which entitled him to special privileges, including White House visits and membership on DNC committees. It said he would not have been eligible for the position had he reported that much of the money he had donated was illegal. Mr. Trie is accused in the indictment of using his trusteeship to gain access to top officials in order to promote personal business interests. That access got 10 dinners, lunches or coffees with Mr. Clinton, four of them at the White House; four events with Vice President Al Gore, one at the White House; and three White House tours with business associates, along with photos with the president. All the occasions occurred between June 1994 and August 1996. The government initially sought to seal the indictment, but U.S. Magistrate Deborah A. Robinson refused the request. She asked prosecutors to tell her in writing why the indictment should be withheld. The request later was withdrawn because of media coverage. Although the Trie-Pan indictment was the first for the campaign task force, it previously had negotiated plea agreements with Nora and Gene Lum, owners of an Oklahoma gas company, after they admitted laundering $50,000 in illegal donations in 1994, and with Michael Brown, son of the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown, after he admitted giving $3,000 to co-workers to donate during the 1994 elections. Mr. Trie, born in Taiwan and a naturalized U.S. citizen, came to public notice in 1996 after Mr. Clinton's legal defense fund said it was returning $640,000 in donations he had collected. The cash, delivered in two envelopes, was returned when fund executives said they did not know its source. The donations included checks with signatures that matched those on other checks and money orders numbered sequentially but from different cities. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:37:43 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: I believe (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 14:48:00 GMT From: Candy To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: I believe I Believe By Michael Kelly Wednesday, February 4, 1998; Page A19=20 I believe the president. I have always believed him. I believed him when he said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War and I believed him when he said he had forgotten to mention that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War. I believed him when he said he hadn't had sex with Gennifer Flowers and I believe him now, when he reportedly says he did. I believe the president did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom, did not sell access to himself and the vice president to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders and did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign finance history, collecting more than $3 million in illegal and improper donations. I believe that Charlie Trie and James Riady were motivated by nothing but patriotism for their adopted country. I believed Vice President Gore when he said that he had made dunning calls to political contributors "on a few occasions" from his White House office, and I believed him when he said that, actually, "a few" meant 46. I believe in no controlling legal authority. I believe Bruce Babbitt when he says that the $286,000 contributed to the DNC by Indian tribes opposed to granting a casino license to rival tribes had nothing to do with his denial of the license. I believed the secretary when he said that he had not been instructed in this matter by then-White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. I believed him when he said later that he had told lobbyist and friend Paul Eckstein that Ickes had told him to move on the casino decision, but that he had been lying to Eckstein. I agree with the secretary that it is an outrage that anyone would question his integrity. I believe in the Clinton Standard of adherence to the nation's campaign finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the president on March 7, 1997: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution." I note with approval the use of the word "evidence" and also the use of the word "solely." I believe that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have given the president money, as long as nobody can find evidence of this being the sole reason. I believe the president has lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history. I believe that indicted former agriculture secretary Mike Espy did not accept $35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods and other regulated businesses. I believe that indicted former housing secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to lie to cover up $250,000 in blackmail payments to his former mistress. I believe that convicted former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstruction of justice when the president's minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he was reneging on his promise to cooperate with Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation. I believe Paula Jones is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Kathleen Willey is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Monica Lewinsky is a cheap tramp who was asking for it. I believe Lewinsky was fantasizing in her 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the president and begged Linda Tripp to join her in lying about the relationship. I believe that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls and the 37 post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the president are evidence only of a platonic relationship; such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between presidents of the United States and White House interns. I see nothing suspicious in the report that the president's intimate, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000-per-year job for Lewinsky shortly after she signed but before she filed an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the president. Nor do I read anything into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, visited Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a job. I believe the instructions Lewinsky gave Tripp informing her on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey matter simply wrote themselves. I believe that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Especially NPR. Michael Kelly is a senior writer for National Journal.=20 =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company A work in progress - -- http://homepage.usr.com/p/pussycat/ =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 This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 06:51:49 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Jim Bohan: Silent Key >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:20:03 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Jim Bohan: Silent Key >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net, > Richard L Hartman >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > >This is to add my condolences to Jim Bohan's family and friends. I will >never forget the time he visited me in my apartment in Grand Prairie, Texas, >in 1995. We spent much of the day telling each other things that one doesn't >want to put on the Internet. He will be missed but not forgetten. > >Now, as radio amateurs say, his key is silent. > >--Jon > >------------------------ > From: Richard L Hartman > >> Jon, in case you haven't heard, Jim Bohan passed away last Thursday. I am >> administrating his email account so that his friends don't wonder why he >> isn't replying personally. >> >> RLH >> >> ----- >> For those of you who may not have heard: >> It is with mixed feelings of sadness and deep respect that I report >the >> passing of Jim Bohan, known to many of us as "The Blue Wolf of Texas". >> Jim died while doing what many of us knew him for - working at his >> computer. He apparently slipped quietly away without suffering, and was >> found by family members. His death was listed as being due to "natural >> causes" and no autopsy was performed. >> I spent a short time on the phone with Jim's family last night, and >> they report a nationwide outpouring of condolences and love for our lost >> friend. Even Mike Foster, Governor of Louisiana, took time out of his busy >> schedule to send flowers. >> Jim was a tireless advocate for individual liberties, and he spent >the >> final years of his life in their pursuit at significant personal expense. >It >> was my great privilege to work with him on the De-Foley-ate Project, and >he >> continued his work on state and national issues from that day forward. >> His is an enviable and enduring legacy. As we work on future >elections, >> take a moment to remember our beloved "Blue Wolf"... if we are reverent >> enough, we may just be able to hear his howl of support. >> >> Richard L. Hartman >> Spokane WA USA >> > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 02/04/98 Time: 16:20:03 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:21:16 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: re:CAS: WT: Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq "show" Ken Chafin posted: >Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq 'show' > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >By Rowan Scarborough >THE WASHINGTON TIMES > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are angry with a White >House-designed bombing campaign against Iraq because it does not target >Saddam Hussein's security forces or his top aides, The Washington Times >has learned. > Instead, cruise missiles and bombs will be primarily targeted at >military facilities and sites known or suspected of holding nuclear, >biological or chemical weapons components, during a three-day campaign, >according to senior military officials. > "The White House is only interested in putting on a show," said a >disgruntled military source. Maybe the Joint Chiefs and the rest of the military should take a lesson from their CinC's early days: TO:POTUS FRM: JCS Re: Iraq HELL NO WE WON'T GO! ... I can hear the chant now. "Hell no we won't go Hell no we won't go..We're Coming for You instead" Or : "No Blood for Bimbos" The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:13:50 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Re: CAS: Starbuck Murders (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:11:52 -0500 From: Toni Howard To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: Re: CAS: Starbuck Murders Ann Khan wrote: >=20 > HSprunt@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 98-02-04 10:12:41 EST, you write: > > > > << Anyone know the name of the officer? >> > > > > The death of the informant was on 12/6. [I read that he was an informa= nt, but > > he may have been an undercover officer.] > > > > In any event, the person's name was Eric Butera, age 31. > > > > The three Starbucks killings were on July 7, 1997, at the Starbucks loc= ated at > > 1810 Wisconsin Ave. NW in Burleith, just north of Georgetown. > > > > This info is from press accounts and I believe it is accurate. > > >=20 > >From the AP article about George Stephanopolis that was in Spotnews: >=20 > ABC News reported Tuesday that Ms. Lewinsky was > claiming Clinton told her in July that they had to cut > off their physical relationship because a reporter was > asking questions about another White House worker > and sexual harassment. Ms. Lewinsky's attorney, > William Ginsburg, declined comment on the report. >=20 >=20 I lifted this from: news:alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater Wayne Mann wrote: The following is excerpted from "Strategic Weekly=20 Briefings" by Craig Karpel, January 23, 1998: According to my sources, when Monica Lewinsky first met=20 with Vernon Jordan in November 1997 she told him she=20 didn=92t want to end up like Caity Mahoney. Jordan professed=20 not to know whom Lewinsky was referring to until she=20 identified Mahoney as the former White House intern who=20 was murdered last summer in a Starbucks. The Starbucks=20 murders were big news in Washington because, as D.C.=20 Council member Jack Evans put it, "To have a triple=20 homicide anywhere in the District of Columbia is an unusual=20 event. To have a triple homicide in Georgetown is=20 extraordinary." I would add that a massacre isn=92t supposed=20 to happen in a Starbucks; cafe latte is supposed to happen. My sources tell me that Jordan gently told Lewinsky not to=20 let her imagination run away with her and assured her that=20 she was in no danger of being murdered on orders from Bill=20 Clinton or anyone associated with Bill Clinton. According to my sources, Lewinsky wasn=92t convinced.=20 When she later met with Jordan in the back of his limousine,=20 Lewinsky is said to have tearfully told him that Linda Tripp=20 believed Vincent Foster didn=92t commit suicide, and that=20 neither she nor Tripp wanted to end up like Foster. Jordan is=20 said to have sighed and told Lewinsky she shouldn=92t believe=20 everything Tripp says, and that Tripp had to be moved out=20 of the White House because she was a troublemaker. According to my sources, Lewinsky is now consumed with=20 fear that, having been flushed into the open by Tripp, she=20 has already, so to speak, "killed herself." And what of the unsolved murder of Caity Mahoney? A $100,000 reward offered by Starbucks hasn=92t caused=20 anyone to come forward. The police have gotten nowhere. Virginia Mahoney, Caity=92s=20 stepmother, worked for six years in the U.S. attorney=92s=20 office in Baltimore assisting crime victims=92 families. "I=92m=20 furious," she says. "If there=92s one thing I know, it=92s service=20 to crime victims, and we=92re not getting it." With the investigation of Caity Mahoney=92s execution at a=20 dead end and Monica Lewinsky on ice while her lawyers try=20 to deal, I have two suggestions: To the D.C. police: As reported in the July 25, 1997 SWB,=20 Doris Matsui, the White House official responsible for=20 liaison with the Asian-American community, headed the=20 Asian Pacific American Working Group (APAWG), which=20 coordinated the activities of the White House, the=20 Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore re- election campaign with regard to Asian-Americans.=20 APAWG, one of whose members was John Huang, came=20 up with the plan to raise $7 million from Asian-Americans.=20 Caity Mahoney interned for Doris Matsui. Check it out. To Lewinsky: You need bodyguards, lady. Lots of beef, cut=20 thick. The thing to do during a feeding frenzy is not to get=20 eaten. - --=20 mailto:AntoniaHoward@Worldnet.att.net http://www.imagemuse.com http://www.imagemuse.com/Satyer/Satyer.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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:24:00 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: LT: Yelsin won't go along on Iraq (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 18:16:42 -0800 From: Ken Chafin To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: LT: Yelsin won't go along on Iraq London Times 2/5/98 Russia Yeltsin fears 'there will be world war' FROM ROBIN LODGE IN MOSCOW PRESIDENT Yeltsin yesterday issued a vehement criticism of United States policy towards Iraq, saying that President Clinton was "making too much noise" and that the use of force could lead to world war. Addressing Russian journalists during a meeting with Anatoli Chubais, the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Yeltsin said the UN Security Council would vote against the use of force against Iraq - indicating that Russia was prepared to exercise its veto. "By acting this way in Iraq, he [Mr Clinton] may run into a world war. He is making too much noise over this, too much noise. These weapons must be handled with care and no threats should be made that Iraq will be inundated with planes and bombs," Mr Yeltsin said. His comments were the most hostile towards Mr Clinton since the crisis began. The two leaders spoke by telephone earlier this week and both had agreed that a negotiated settlement was the most desirable outcome. The latest statement coincided with a Duma resolution calling for condemnation of the United States and for Russia to consider lifting sanctions unilaterally in the event of air strikes. The resolution is non-binding, but Mr Yeltsin was clearly anxious to be seen in accord with the country's pro-Iraqi mood. Communist and nationalist politicians have been trying to whip up public outrage by accusing the United States of threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons against Saddam Hussein. Mr Yeltsin stopped short of such charges, although his reference to "these weapons" was likely to add to the impression in Russia that a nuclear strike is under consideration. Moscow has been insisting that its diplomacy was coming to fruition. On Monday it announced that after talks with Viktor Posuvalyuk, Mr Yeltsin's special envoy, the Iraqis had proposed a compromise under which UN weapons inspectors would be allowed access to eight sites previously denied to them. The Iraqis initially denied making any such offer, but yesterday a CNN report from Baghdad appeared to confirm the Russian version. Russian diplomatic efforts to end the crisis continued yesterday. Yevgeni Primakov, the Foreign Minister, had a telephone conversation with Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State and Mr Yeltsin was due to speak to Tony Blair and President Chirac of France. Mr Posuvalyuk was continuing talks in Baghdad, where he was joined by a French special envoy, Bertrand Dufourcq. * Washington: In response to Mr Yeltsin's criticism, the White House said yesterday: "If Saddam Hussein complies with the UN resolutions, there will be no need to invoke military force" (Bronwen Maddox writes). Washington and the UN Security Council gave a cool reception to Iraq's offer to open a limited number of sites to inspectors. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:38:20 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: RE: Re: CAS: WT: Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq "show" (fwd) On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Timothy Lee, Richardson wrote: > As you read the below, and the many similar articles in and out of the > mainstream media, hold in mind that Iraq is the LAST GOVERNMENT ON THE FACE OF > THE EARTH TO be set against the comming New World Order Dictatorship..... > > hummm................. Not really, Bush approved a 8 billion food loan to Saddam back in the 1980s that he used to buy arms with from the French. We approved because we wanted a foe to offset Iran and the Islamic revolution. It backfired and ended up with desert storm. We still did not take him out because we did not want to have to station troops there forever like Korea. Then when the CIA backed Kurds tried to stage a coup we let them die because again we did not want a Islamic right wing revolution. They hate Saddam but they need him to offset the other forces. He knows this and thats why he is able to wag his butt in our public face so much. Typical case of CIA and state department screwing up an area worse than it would probably be otherwise. All the rest of the world knows this and that is why they hate us so much. We still are a big bully in the world and now we are the hired soldiers of the multi-national corporations that really are the New World Order. IMHO Paul Watson - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:51:33 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: (OT) Nuclear Posture Review 1/2 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:22:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Edward F. Immler" To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: (OT) Nuclear Posture Review 1/2 Found at: http://www2.dtic.mil/execsec/adr95/npr_.html [Exec Home Page] [Table of Contents] [Bottom of Page] [Next Page] NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) represents the nuclear analog to the Bottom-Up Review of conventional forces, undertaken in 1993 to address the significant changes in the security environment which face the United States, and the military consequences of those changes. The NPR was the first review of nuclear policy in the post-Cold War world, the first such review in 15 years, and the first review ever to include policy, doctrine, force structure, command and control, operations, supporting infrastructure, safety, security, and arms control. The decisions made in the NPR process allow DoD to put its nuclear programs on a stable footing after several years of rapid change in the international environment and in DoD's forces and programs, and at the threshold of a decade of further reductions called for by the START I and START II agreements. Five basic themes of U.S. nuclear strategy emerged from the Nuclear Posture Review: * First, nuclear weapons are playing a smaller role in U.S. security than at any other time in the nuclear age. This fact served as a point of departure for the rest of the review. The Bottom-Up Review and the Counterproliferation Initiative (CPI) are designed to achieve and protect U.S. conventional superiority wherever American defense commitments require it. * The second principal finding is that the United States requires a much smaller nuclear arsenal under present circumstances. Dramatic reductions in U.S. (and, when implemented, former Soviet) forces from Cold War levels are underway. * Third, although the security environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, there is still great uncertainty about the future, particularly in the New Independent States where the process of denuclearization and reduction is underway but by no means completed. The United States must provide a hedge against this uncertainty. Therefore, the NPR stresses prudence in the face of potential risks while also identifying some new policy departures that reflect changes in the security environment. * Fourth, the United States does not have a purely national deterrent posture; it extends the deterrent protection of its nuclear arsenal to its allies. A very progressive aspect of U.S. nuclear posture is that it is, in part, an international nuclear posture. The NPR strongly supports continued commitment to NATO and Pacific allies. * Finally, the United States will continue to set the highest international standards of stewardship for nuclear safety and security, command and control, use control, and civilian control. PROCESS The Nuclear Posture Review was chartered in October 1993 to determine what the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy should be. A 10-month DoD collaborative effort, the NPR was co-chaired by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Joint Staff. Working groups were comprised of representatives from OSD, the Joint Staff, the Services, and the unified commands. The Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reviewed and directed the progress of the NPR through issue briefs and the development of a final report, which was presented to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some decisions relating to the NPR were raised through the interagency process, including all relevant agencies of the U.S. government, which had the opportunity to review a wide range of options. The President approved the recommendations of the NPR on September 18, 1994. ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN U.S. SECURITY The U.S. National Security Strategy states: "We will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from acting against our vital interests and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile. Therefore we will continue to maintain nuclear forces of sufficient size and capability to hold at risk a broad range of assets valued by such political and military leaders." Recent international upheavals have not changed the calculation that nuclear weapons remain an essential part of American military power. Concepts of deterrence and survivability must adapt to the new international environment, yet continue to be central to the U.S. nuclear posture. Thus, the United States will continue to threaten retaliation, including nuclear retaliation, and to deter aggression against the United States, U.S. forces, and U.S. allies. Alliance relationships are an important element of U.S. security. Through forward basing and power projection capabilities, overseas U.S. military presence -- including nuclear capabilities -- helped promote regional stability, avert crises, and deter war. In recent years, there has been a dramatic reduction in both the overall size of the U.S. military presence abroad and in the nuclear capabilities deployed overseas. Yet maintaining U.S. nuclear commitments with NATO, and retaining the ability to deploy nuclear capabilities to meet various regional contingencies, continues to be an important means for deterring aggression, protecting and promoting U.S. interests, reassuring allies and friends, and preventing proliferation. Although nuclear capabilities are now a far smaller part of the routine U.S. international presence, they remain an important element in the array of military capabilities that the United States can bring to bear, either independently or in concert with allies to deter war, or should deterrence fail, to defeat aggression. Thus, the United States continues to extend deterrence to U.S. allies and friends. CONTEXT: LEAD BUT HEDGE The Nuclear Posture Review considered the size and role of U.S. nuclear forces in a world in which the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, rather than the nuclear arsenal of a hostile superpower, poses the greatest security risk. One goal for the NPR was to demonstrate U.S. leadership in responding to that risk. Major reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons are already underway, confirming the U.S. commitment to a smaller international role for nuclear weapons. Since 1988, the United States has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 59 percent, and either eliminated, truncated, or never fielded over 15 nuclear weapons systems. The United States has no new nuclear weapons programs, and has committed to achieving a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, extending its testing moratorium in the interim. Program changes of this magnitude help set an example of decreasing dependence on nuclear weapons for military purposes. U.S. nuclear weapons were for years justified by the potential for a massive conventional attack by the Warsaw Pact through the Fulda Gap which would overwhelm NATO conventional forces. The decisions of the members of the Warsaw Pact to dissolve their alliance and the subsequent transformation of the Soviet Union into independent states removed this potential threat. No equivalent threat to American vital interests can be identified in the post-Cold War era, and for very few of the existing threats are nuclear weapons appropriate responses. The NPR sought to adjust and reduce strategic programs to reflect actual U.S. needs, thereby setting an example for other nuclear powers to consider post-Cold War adjustments of their own. Moreover, the CPI has as its central tenet the creation and furtherance of conventional responses to the threat or use of weapons of mass destruction. Far from inventing new roles for nuclear weapons in countering WMD, the NPR supports the CPI, because in a potential case of WMD threat or use, senior political and military leaders must have a wide range of responses -- especially non-nuclear -- from which to choose. Having the conventional capability to respond to WMD threat or use further reduces U.S. dependence on nuclear weapons. These realities make the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) all the more important. A failure to codify the reduced role of nuclear weapons in nations' security could result in the creation of additional nuclear powers -- a clear reduction in the security of all nations. The Posture Review sought to demonstrate American leadership by reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security. The combination of the large negotiated reductions embodied in the START I and START II treaties and the further unilateral reductions recommended by the NPR makes tangible the U.S. commitment to Article 6 of the NPT, which calls for the nuclear powers to take steps to reduce their arsenals. Once START II has been ratified, further negotiated reductions can be considered. The notion, however, that nations are motivated by U.S. nuclear forces in making decisions about acquiring nuclear weapons themselves is simply not valid. Potential proliferators are more likely to be driven by concerns about neighbors' capabilities or the desire for prestige or regional hegemony than by decisions America makes about its nuclear arsenal. Extending the NPT indefinitely will therefore do far more to improve individual nations' security than would further declines in superpower weapons stocks. A major focus of the Nuclear Posture Review was nonstrategic nuclear forces (NSNF) and safety, security, and use control. The United States decided in the NPR to completely eliminate two out of its five types of NSNF, and to augment several aspects of nuclear safety and security. These efforts were discussed with Russian civilian and military leaders in the hope that they would take similar measures to reduce NSNF and improve nuclear safety, security, and use control. The United States is prepared, under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, to cooperate with and support Russia in these endeavors. Both the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union have acted quickly and responsibly to ease Cold War tensions. Both sides have decreased their nuclear stockpiles and are eliminating the weapons which most undermine stability. U.S. and Russian weapons have been de-targeted so that they are no longer aimed at any country. With U.S. help and financial aid, Russia is moving in the direction of economic reform and working to consolidate the nuclear arsenal that belonged to the Soviet Union. These policies have not eliminated the threat posed by the weapons of the former Soviet Union, however. START I has just entered into force; START II has not been ratified by either the United States or Russia. Even after achieving the full reductions called for by both treaties, each side will retain up to 3,500 warheads on strategic offensive systems. While political relations with Russia have changed dramatically in recent years, the United States must retain a nuclear capability adequate to respond to any challenge. Further, most of the strategic nuclear weapons remaining in the former Soviet Union still are deployed and capable of attacking targets in the United States. Russia remains the focus of the Posture Review not because its intentions are hostile, but because it controls the only nuclear arsenal that can physically threaten the survivability of U.S. nuclear forces. A significant shift in the Russian government into the hands of arch-conservatives could restore the strategic nuclear threat to the United States literally overnight. The removal of weapons located on the territory of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus is still incomplete. Other nations not allied with the United States either have declared nuclear arsenals or are capable of developing them. With this kind of instability and uncertainty, the United States must maintain nuclear weapons necessary to deter any possible threat or to respond to aggression, should deterrence fail. The NPR called for an affordable hedge in which the approved force structure could support weapons levels greater than those called for under START II should major geostrategic changes demand it. This lead and hedge theme reflects the pragmatic partnership between the United States and Russia, in which the United States seeks both to cooperate with Russia wherever such cooperation is possible, and to prepare realistically for possible tensions or disruptions of that relationship. REDUCTIONS IN U.S. NUCLEAR POSTURE The deep reductions in nonstrategic and strategic nuclear weapons that have been underway for several years and will continue under START I and START II are clear evidence that the United States is reducing the role that nuclear weapons play in its military posture. Throughout the last several years, nuclear targeting and war planning have undergone several reviews and adjustments to account for the decline of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet breakup, and will continue to change in response to further developments in international affairs. In fact, there have been significant changes in the U.S. nuclear posture since the end of the Cold War: * There are no nuclear weapons in the custody of U.S. ground forces. * Naval NSNF are no longer deployed at sea. * Strategic bombers have been taken off day-to-day alert. * The total U.S. active warhead stockpile has been reduced by 59 percent (79 percent by 2003). Deployed strategic warheads have been reduced by 47 percent (71 percent by 2003, when START I and II are implemented). * NSNF weapons have been cut by 90 percent, and the NATO stockpile has been cut by 91 percent. * Nuclear weapons storage locations have been reduced by over 75 percent. * The number of personnel with access to nuclear weapons has been cut by 70 percent. The Department also is reducing substantially the worldwide airborne command post fleet -- reflecting the decline in the likelihood of a superpower confrontation. Since 1989, the programmatic implications of START I and II, and the two earlier Presidential Nuclear Initiatives on U.S. nuclear programs, also have been quite substantial. Program terminations, or systems that were developed but never became operational, include the small intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Peacekeeper rail garrison, Lance follow-on, New Artillery Fired Atomic Projectile, Tactical Air to Surface Missile and Short Range Attack Missile II. Other programs were truncated, that is systems were either fielded in fewer numbers than originally envisioned or, in the case of the B-1, will be converted to conventional-only usage. These truncations include Peacekeeper, B-2, B-1 (which will drop its nuclear role), Advanced Cruise Missile, and the W-88 warhead. There are also a number of nuclear systems that were retired from service and never replaced; these include the Artillery Fired Atomic Projectile, FB-111, Minuteman II, Lance, Short Range Attack Missile-A, Nuclear Depth Bomb, and C-3/C-4 Backfit nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). In all, spending on strategic nuclear forces, in constant 1994 dollars, dropped from $47.8 billion in 1984 to $13.5 billion in 1994, or 14.0 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES Two basic requirements necessarily guide U.S. planning for strategic nuclear forces: the need to provide an effective deterrent while remaining within START I/II limits, and the need to allow for additional forces to be reconstituted in the event of a reversal of currently positive trends. The Department must hedge against uncertainties while recognizing that no new nuclear systems are under development. The NPR examined a wide variety of options for strategic nuclear force structures, ranging from ones which increased platforms over those previously planned, to a minimal force that eliminated ICBMs and reduced the number of SSBNs to 10. The Review examined what force levels were needed to handle the most stressing case that could develop -- deterring a hostile Russia. The President approved the NPR's recommended strategic nuclear force posture as the U.S. START II force. This force will maintain flexibility to reconstitute or reduce further and assumes that Russia ratifies and implements START II. At this level, the United States would have adequate weapons to: * Deter a hostile Russian government by holding at risk a range of assets valued by its political and military leaders. * Maintain a strategic reserve force to ensure continued deterrence of other nuclear powers. * Account for weapons on systems which are not available due to maintenance and overhaul. The NPR did not change the total number of warheads the United States planned to retain under START II. However, the Review did identify ways to streamline forces by reducing the number of platforms carrying these warheads. As a result of the NPR, U.S. strategic nuclear force structure will be adjusted to comprise: * 14 Trident submarines -- four fewer than previously planned -- carrying 24 D-5 missiles, each with five warheads, per submarine. This will require backfitting four Trident SSBNs, currently carrying the Trident I (C- 4) missile, with the more modern and capable D-5 missile system. * 66 B-52 bombers -- down from 94 planned in 1993 -- carrying air-launched cruise missiles (AGM-86B) and advanced cruise missiles (AGM-129). * 20 B-2 bombers -- the same number previously envisioned -- carrying gravity bombs. * 450/500 Minuteman III missiles, each carrying a single warhead. In addition, no new strategic nuclear systems are either under development or planned. The NPR re-examined the concept of a triad of ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and bombers as the basis for a strategic deterrent and determined it remains valid for a START II-size force. Today, the United States relies on fewer types of nuclear weapon systems than in the past. Hedging against system failure of a leg of a triad -- either because of technical failure of a delivery platform or warhead, or technological breakthroughs by potential adversaries -- is a primary reason to retain a triad. Each leg also has unique characteristics and specific advantages. ******************************************************************* Edward F. Immler There is a time to lead, ed@globaldialog.com a time to follow, and a time to just get out of the way. Great leaders know which is appropriate. ******************************************************************* ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #63 ************************