<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><?xml:namespace
prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'">Philo</SPAN></st1:City><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'">, <st1:State
w:st="on">CA</st1:State></SPAN></st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'">, May,
2014<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>Dear
friend,<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Nuclear war would be the ultimate environmental catastrophe, so we can’t
let it happen. Here’s an article I just wrote to stimulate some critical
attention to nuclear confrontation today. Please circulate or print it at
will.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>--John Lewallen
(707)895-2996 <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>Is <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> Nuclear
Weapons Strategy Risking Nuclear War?<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>--by John
Lewallen<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>As the United States
engages in economic warfare with Russia over the fate of the Ukraine, and
continues the escalating encirclement of Russia and China with nuclear and other
weapons designed to carry out a nuclear first-strike against these nations, it’s
time for all of us to take a close look at U.S. nuclear weapons strategy. Is the
current <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> nuclear strategy
of seeking nuclear weapons dominance by developing and deploying weapons which
increasingly threaten <st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region>
and <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> with a nuclear
first-strike protecting the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>? Or, is the
relentlessly escalating threat of surprise nuclear attack against
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region> and
<st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> forcing their nuclear
commanders to prepare to strike the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> with a preemptive
nuclear attack? <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>“The Rise of <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region>
Nuclear Primacy,” by Keir A Lieber and Daryl G. Press, in the April, 2006 issue
of <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Foreign Affairs, </I>the journal of
the <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> foreign policy
establishment, describes a <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> nuclear weapons strategy focused
on gaining “first-strike capability,” the ability to destroy all of an
adversary’s nuclear forces, eliminating the possibility of a retaliatory strike.
While confronting the Soviet Union, wrote Lieber and Press, the U.S. “expanded
its nuclear arsenal, continuously improved the accuracy and lethality of its
weapons aimed at Soviet nuclear arms, targeted Soviet command-and-control
systems, invested in missile-defense sields, sent attack submarines to trail
Soviet SSBNs (nuclear-armed submarines), and built increasingly accurate
multiwarhead land- and submarine-launched ballistic missiles as well as stealth
bombers and stealthy nuclear-armed cruise missiles…Since the Cold War’s end, the
U.S. nuclear arsenal has significantly improved.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy made clear that
the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> “is openly seeking primacy in every
dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in
its nuclear forces.” Lieber and Press confirm what critics have been saying
about U.S. deployment of missile defense systems: “…even a multilayered system
with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect
the United States from a major nuclear attack…If the United States launched a
nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left
with a tiny surviving arsenal—if any at all. At that point, even a relatively
modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect
against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few
warheads and decoys left.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>I believe that this <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> attempt to gain nuclear weapons
primacy is a catastrophically dangerous impossibility which makes hostages out
of all of us, and threatens the destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. Any
thermonuclear strike would cause unimaginable death and environmental
destruction from the blast, heat and radiation, affecting the entire world. A
December, 2013 report by Physicians for Social Responsibility estimated that a
nuclear war between <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> and
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Pakistan</st1:place></st1:country-region> using only 0.5% of the
world’s nuclear weapons would put two billion people at risk of starvation. The
only sane nuclear war strategy is prevention.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Nuclear weapons confrontation is the great equalizer. Even a single
nuclear weapon could cause crippling destruction to any nation. As Lieber and
Press note, neither <st1:country-region w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region>
nor <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> can keep up with
the expensive <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> proliferation of nuclear weapons
and delivery systems. However, they can prepare a few weapons which could
survive a nuclear first-strike and destroy the <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United
States</st1:country-region></st1:place>.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>The reality of high-altitude nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons,
designed to destroy all computer chips in line of sight of the blast, is
completely ignored by the strategic analysis presented by Lieber and Press. In
1997, hearings held by Representative Curt Weldon in the U.S. House of
Representatives revealed that the <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Russia</st1:place></st1:country-region> both have developed a
top-secret arsenal of nuclear weapons designed to “lay down” a powerful
electromagnetic pulse, destroying electronic civilization on Earth and in space
over huge areas. Nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons could be deployed in
satellites, which need not be accurate to cause massive destruction of computer
chips. There is no nuclear first-strike strategy which could protect us from
high-altitude nucear electromagnetic pulse attack.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Perhaps the most frightening misconception in the article by Lieber and
Press is the assertion that “The United States has a first-strike capability
against <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> today and should be able to
maintain it for a decade or more.” <st1:country-region
w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> under Chairman Mao began a top-secret
nuclear weapons program after the <st1:country-region
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> had threatened <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> with
nuclear attack three times. <st1:country-region
w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>’s nuclear weapons strategy is intensely
focused on preventing nuclear threats from the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
As described in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">China’s Nuclear Weapons
Strategy: Tradition within Evolution </I>(Lexington Books, 1988), Chinese
nuclear strategy is informed by the ancient Chinese classic, <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Art of War </I>by Sun Tsu, emphasizing
secrecy, deception, and the development of economic interdependency with the
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> to avoid nuclear war. <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>
almost certainly has a lot more nuclear strike ability than the eighteen nuclear
missiles kept unfueled in silos which they have
revealed.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>With the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>
now entering a more confrontational mode with both <st1:country-region
w:st="on">Russia</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>, it seems
vital to global survival that we all study ways to keep this confrontation from
escalating to nuclear war. All students of nuclear weapons strategy agree that
if there actually is a nuclear war, the nuclear power which strikes first will
gain overwhelming advantage. Though few believe that banning nuclear weapons is
a realistic possibility, there are many words and deeds which move the world’s
nations either away from, or toward, actual nuclear war. I believe the
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> should renounce first-strike
nuclear warfare and abandon its suicidal attempt to achieve nucear primacy by
increasing nuclear threat, and move toward a world which accepts our oneness as
a human race in the need to prevent nuclear war.<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'"><FONT size=3>--John Lewallen edited and
published the Weldon Committee congressional hearings on high-altitude nuclear
electromagnetic pulse warfare in the book <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">High-Altitude Nuclear War </I>(Nuclear
Press, 2002). His email is <lewallen@mcn.org>.<I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> </I><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email is free from viruses and malware because <a href="http://www.avast.com/">avast! Antivirus</a> protection is active.
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</BODY></HTML>