May 19, 2003
MoveOn: Stop the "usable" nukes!

Dear MoveOn member,

We now know that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And while most nations are trying to control the spread of such weapons globally, the Bush administration is pursuing the invention of even more dangerous portable weapons -- including "usable" mini-nukes -- that could make arms control impossible.

Our Senators are about to vote on supporting the Administration's request to repeal current law banning the creation of new, low-yield nuclear weapons. "Low-yield" is defined as less than five kilotons - approximately one-third the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. The development of new low-yield weapons will also require nuclear testing, which hasn’t been done in over a decade.

Please call now and ask your Senator to oppose lifting the ban on building new nuclear weapons in the Defense Authorization Bill.

Senator Charles E. Schumer
DC Phone: 202-224-6542

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
DC Phone: 202-224-4451

Please let us know you're making these important calls, at:

http://www.moveon.org/call5.html?id=1372-728724-yW0gq0VXqghJipKwH6ACAg


Make sure the staffers know you're a constituent. Here are some talking points:

- We have conventional weapons that will work anywhere in the world against any target. We don’t need new nuclear weapons. And there is no military requirement to develop new nuclear weapons.

- The development of low-yield nuclear weapons will provide incentives for other countries and rogue states to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

- The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to gain access to these weapons of mass destruction.

- Developing new nuclear weapons will hinder the U.S.’s ability to persuade others to disarm and will make the world a more dangerous place.

Of course, your own words are always best.

Thanks for your patience with the number of issues we're highlighting this month. The far right is moving on many fronts at once, but we’ve got to keep fighting. If we can blunt the worst of these attacks, we can turn the tide. Thanks for your support,

- Wes Boyd and Joan Blades
MoveOn.org
May 19, 2003

P.S. We’ve attached an excerpt from a good article on new battlefield nukes below.

Thanks to everyone for their help on the tax and budget countdown last week. By all reports, Senate phones were ringing off the hook on Wednesday. Last week, our TV ad played in 23 markets throughout the nation, and it got great free news coverage. The Senate narrowly voted for a $350 billion version of the tax bill that doesn’t fit well with the House bill, so there’s likely to be opportunities in conference. Please stay tuned. _______

Los Angeles Times
May 13, 2003
A NUCLEAR ROAD OF NO RETURN
Bush's bid for new kinds of weapons
could put the world on a suicidal course.
By Robert Scheer http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-scheer13may13,0,5142385.column

It turns out the threat is not from Iraq but from us.

On Sunday, the Washington Post wrote the obituary for the United States' effort to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. "Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq," read the headline, confirming what has become an embarrassing truth - that the central rationale for the invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq was in fact one of history's great frauds.

The arms inspectors "are winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms," reported the Post, putting the lie to Colin Powell's Feb. 6 claim at the United Nations that Iraq possessed a functioning program to build nuclear bombs and had hoarded hundreds of tons of chemical and biological materials.

Unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean the world is a safer place. The deadly weapons of mass destruction have proved phantom in Iraq, but the Bush administration is now doing its best to ensure that the world becomes increasingly unstable and armed to the teeth. Although the nuclear threat from Iraq proved to be nonexistent, the United States' threat to use nuclear weapons and make a shambles of nuclear arms control is alarmingly vibrant.

In its latest bid to frighten the planet into a constant state of shock and awe, our government is accelerating its own leading-edge weapons-of-mass-destruction program: President Bush's allies on the Senate Armed Services Committee have approved ending a decade-old ban on developing atomic battlefield weapons and endorsed moving ahead with creating a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. They also rubber-stamped the administration's request for funds to prepare for a quick resumption of nuclear weapons testing.

What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy - millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned...

Posted by Brian Stefans at May 19, 2003 05:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Very nice blog

Posted by: Steven on November 29, 2003 07:42 AM

Thanks!

Posted by: Flug Teneriffa on January 17, 2004 07:54 AM

When a variable is finished with it's work, it does not go into retirement, and it is never mentioned again. Variables simply cease to exist, and the thirty-two bits of data that they held is released, so that some other variable may later use them.

Posted by: Annabella on January 19, 2004 12:00 AM

But variables get one benefit people do not

Posted by: Eleanor on January 19, 2004 12:01 AM

Each Stack Frame represents a function. The bottom frame is always the main function, and the frames above it are the other functions that main calls. At any given time, the stack can show you the path your code has taken to get to where it is. The top frame represents the function the code is currently executing, and the frame below it is the function that called the current function, and the frame below that represents the function that called the function that called the current function, and so on all the way down to main, which is the starting point of any C program.

Posted by: Peter on January 19, 2004 12:01 AM

The rest of our conversion follows a similar vein. Instead of going through line by line, let's just compare end results: when the transition is complete, the code that used to read:

Posted by: Josias on January 19, 2004 12:01 AM

Inside each stack frame is a slew of useful information. It tells the computer what code is currently executing, where to go next, where to go in the case a return statement is found, and a whole lot of other things that are incredible useful to the computer, but not very useful to you most of the time. One of the things that is useful to you is the part of the frame that keeps track of all the variables you're using. So the first place for a variable to live is on the Stack. This is a very nice place to live, in that all the creation and destruction of space is handled for you as Stack Frames are created and destroyed. You seldom have to worry about making space for the variables on the stack. The only problem is that the variables here only live as long as the stack frame does, which is to say the length of the function those variables are declared in. This is often a fine situation, but when you need to store information for longer than a single function, you are instantly out of luck.

Posted by: Warham on January 19, 2004 12:02 AM
-->