- At the end of the Cold War the peoples of the earth shared
a rare moment in human history. In fact, nothing like it had ever happened
before. The United Sates stood alone as the lone planetary Superpower.
The American star which had been rising since the second World War had
now reached its zenith. For whatever reason, it seemed that destiny had
selected the United States for a special role: to guide the community of
nations into a period of unparalleled peace and prosperity. With the fading
of East-West tensions this and much more seemed within reach. For a brief
time it did appear that anything was possible. And why not? After all,
the United States faced no serious military challenges. The US dollar was
the favored currency in international exchange. In fact, it had been for
decades. English was the lingua franca of science, diplomacy and commerce.
Almost the entire world acknowledged US leadership. American culture was
widely imitated. Together, this was unprecedented. Never had one nation,
let alone a democracy, achieved such global influence. America had both
the prestige and the power literally to shape the future of humanity.
- Legacy of the Cold War
- The world was desperate for a new vision. This was true
for many reasons, but primarily because the titanic struggle between capitalism
and socialism had been enormously destructive. The forty-five year Cold
War had been waged on many fronts and in the most improbable places. It
was an ideological war, not a clash of civilizations. As the vying spheres
of influence ebbed and flowed across the continents, numerous nations were
drawn in. Proxy wars raged along the tectonic margins and at the friction
points where East and West collided. Neither side could defeat the other
militarily without destroying itself, because the epic struggle was governed
by a mad doctrine, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It was a fitting
acronym for an insane time, and also a cruel paradox. For decades the world,
rigged to a trip wire, could neither stand still nor move forward. The
added rub, which I believe the world sensed intuitively, was that the precarious
balance could not be sustained indefinitely. Of course, looking back it
is now clear that that the Cold War itself, I mean the idea of the Cold
War, was a carefully cultivated illusion: a false reality; but that is
another story. Certainly the consequences were real enough. Citizens of
the planet who lived through the period know what it means to live wedged
between impossible alternativesthe unthinkable on one hand
and the unendurable on the other. Many were crushed beneath these wheels.
Some nations were utterly destroyed, even beyond hope of recovery. The
list of victims is long, and includes Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Chile,
the Dominican Republic, Haiti, East Timor, Ethiopia, Granada, Guatemala,
Honduras, Indonesia, Laos, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Sudan,
and Viet Nam. No doubt, there are others...
- Even as the Cold War trampled on the rights of indigenous
people everywhere it despoiled the global environment. Toxic mayhem on
a vast scale accompanied the nuclear arms race. Entire regions were affected
and many were ruined or left permanently scarred. The open wounds from
the heyday of uranium mining still deface the landscapes of the American
southwest. As I write, Navaho children play on the tailing piles, amidst
the radioactive dust, left behind by soul-less corporations that appeared
on the scene, eager to make a fast buck, boomed briefly, then disappeared
or were swallowed, in turn, by still larger corporations with even less
of a conscience. Even worse scars can be found in the former Soviet republics
where whole provinces were poisoned by catastrophic accidents at Sverdlovsk
and Chernobyl, and entire districts, such as the Aral Sea region, were
despoiled by central planning gone amok.
- Dashed Hopes
- By any measure, the toll of the Cold War was incalculable,
and it's no wonder that when the corrupt old Soviet state finally collapsed
under its own weight the world's response was: good riddance! The dismantling
of the Iron Curtain was attended by joyous celebration across Europe. For
a brief moment hope soared. In the US there was even talk of a peace dividend.
Everywhere people dared to believe that the victory of the West presaged
a new era of international cooperation, now desperately needed to address
a long list of pressing problems, among them Third World poverty, overpopulation,
the challenge of sustainable development, the energy crisis, AIDs, and
the environment. Most importantly, at long last real progress toward nuclear
disarmament seemed within reach. All eyes now turned to the West and especially
to Washington for answers and for leadership. Yet, as I write in October
2007 it is painfully obvious, and has been for most of the presidency of
George W. Bush, that the high hopes have been dashed. All that remains
is the question: How and why did this happen? It is a difficult question,
admittedly, but if we are to find our way back and regain a measure of
hope, we must face it with brutal honesty.
- Today, many Americans hold G. W. Bush personally responsible
for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere that have brought about
America's increasing isolation in the world. Many also blame Bush for the
general decline in our fortunes and for the dimming of hope. While I am
no friend of the Bush administration, I do not entirely agree with this
view, because I take issue with those who still naively believe in a partisan
solution. The truth is more complex. In fact, the previous Democratic administration
of William Jefferson Clinton bears a large measure of responsibility for
the disasters that have befallen us. In many ways the Clinton White House
set the stage for George W. Bush. Dr. Helen Caldicott, the tireless campaigner
against nuclear oblivion, writes that she got the wake-up call about Clinton
in 1999 when she was invited to attend a meeting in Florida about the weaponization
of space. Caldicott was aghast as she listened to knowledgeable individuals
describe US military planning, then current. Like many of us, she had trusted
Bill Clinton, and had believed he was taking care of the nation's business.
Suddenly, Caldicott realized she had been living in a fool's paradise.
- "To my horror I found that seventy-five military
industrial corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, TRW
Aerojet, Hughes Space, Sparta Corp, and Vista Technologies had produced
a Long Range Plan, written with the cooperation of the US Space Command,
announcing a declaration of US space leadership and calling for the funding
of defensive system and 'a seamlessly integrated force of theatre land,
sea, air and space capabilities through a world-wide global defense information
network.' The US Space Command would also 'hold at risk' a finite number
of 'high-value' earth targets with near instantaneous force applicationthe
ability to kill from space...I also discovered that the much-vaunted missile
defense system was to be closely integrated with the weaponization of space,
and that all of the hardware and software would be made by the same firms,
at the combined cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to the US taxpayers."
- The plan envisaged "full spectrum dominance,"
that is, US military domination of land, sea, air and space. Although US
planners sought to portray this next generation of technological wizardry
as defensive, in actuality, the planned systems, if implemented, amounted
to a major break with the 1972 ABM Treaty, and with long-standing US commitments
to maintain the peaceful status of outer space. The cold logic of dominance
meant that the project was offensive in nature. But why? Exactly who was
to be targeted? Which enemies? Remember, this was 1999. The Cold War had
been over for some years. Both Russia and the US were then cooperating
to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals. The START reductions were
limited, to be sure, but the process was moving in the right direction
and further reductions were possible. Obviously, the US military's sweeping
new plans for the domination of space threatened to undo all of this progress
toward a more sane planet. It was obvious to Caldicott that a precious
opportunity was in danger of being squandered, perhaps forever. The new
space weapons threatened to trigger a new arms race and, very likely, another
cycle of world conflict. Caldicott writes that she staggered home from
the meeting determined "to become re-involved in educating the public
about the impending catastrophe associated with the mad plans of the US
Space Command and its associated corporations"
- The Critical Path:
- Swords into Plowshares
- The point is that not even one of the new weapons systems
being planned were needed. In fact, the grand plan for space, if implemented,
would have benefited no one but a few arms manufacturers and, of course,
the bankers who finance such deranged schemesall at immense
cost to the US taxpayer. The plans were in direct conflict with then-current
US foreign policies. The weaponization of space was diametrically opposed
to the limited nuclear arms reductions then in progress, yet, was being
presented as in the best interests of America: a case of mendacity so brazen
one has to wonder how the selfish individuals who cooked it up could sleep
- As I've noted, the end of the Cold War presented America
and the world with a golden opportunity to move in a new direction, a direction
that was, in fact, essential for the survival of our planetary civilization.
As a younger man I was an admirer of the late R. Buckminster Fuller. The
inventor is probably best known for the geodesic dome, but Fuller also
popularized the concept of the "critical path." It is an expression
used by engineers and it means exactly what it suggests. The idea is that
if we are to become sustainable on "spaceship earth" and avoid
destroying our planetary home we must learn to live within the physical
limitations or budget imposed by Nature. This, in turn, requires that we
drastically reduce our human "footprint" by becoming much more
efficient in the way we use energy and natural resources. Fuller was a
firm believer in human ingenuity, and he often argued that our predicament
called for a designer revolution on various levels, both economic and social.
None of the steps in the critical path are optional, from the standpoint
of survival. Taken together, they should be understood as the minimum requirements
necessary for the long-term success of the human enterprise. While experts
often disagree, at the end of the Cold War the single most urgent step
was obvious, or should have been, to every thinking person; and this includes
the newly elected President Bill Clinton, who entered the White House in
1992 on a wave of high hopes.
- As the first US president to be inaugurated in the post-Cold
War era, Bill Clinton's number one priority should have been to meet with
our Russian neighbors at an early date, and to negotiate with them a mutual
halt in nuclear weapons production and research, as well as a rapid build-down
of existing nuclear stockpiles and delivery systems. It was also imperative
that Clinton give firm direction to the US military. The Pentagon had to
be made to understand that because the Cold War was now thankfully over
the nation must chart a new path, one that required the urgent redeployment
of resources away from the nuclear arms race. A key part of this redirection
would be the announcement of a vital new mission for the national weapons
labs (Lawrence, Los Alamos, and Sandia). Henceforth, the labs would cease
most weapons-related research/development and would redirect their considerable
energies and talents in a positive direction, the new mission being a Manhattan-scale
project to solve the nation's energy problem. The goal would be to wean
America from its unhealthy dependence on coal and foreign oil. Clinton
would instruct the labs to engineer a phased transition toward abundant
and clean energy alternatives at the earliest possible date; and to make
it happen he would also press Congress to appropriate the needed funding.
Efforts would focus on a range of promising technologies, but especially
wind, solar, tidal, and hydrogen. Meanwhile, the nuclear establishment
would be stripped of its vast subsidies. Although in a bye-gone era these
were a sound idea, the nuclear establishment had produced no energy solutions,
despite years of preferential treatment. Indeed, the vast monies lavished
upon it had succeeded only in creating another bureaucratic dinosaur. In
fact,the nuclear industry itself had become an impediment to change, because
its enormous subsidies undermined healthy market forces. Henceforth, nuclear
power would have to compete on a more equal playing field with other alternatives.
Assisting market forces to operate would be essential to the transition
to clean energy; and for this reason another goal would be to achieve the
economies of scale necessary to bring down the costs of clean and renewable
alternatives. The end result would be greatly enhanced national productivity,
the creation of whole new sectors of the economy, boosted foreign earnings,
and millions of high-paying new jobs here in the US. Resources would also
be redirected to a long list of outstanding social and environmental problems.
At the top of the latter list: the urgent clean-up of the toxic mess created
by the nuclear establishment during a profligate half-century of out-of-control
weapons development. This alone would cost an estimated $350 billion (in
1995 dollars, according to the Department of Energy [DoE]), a whopping
figure that does not even include the costs associated with cleaning up
the mess at the Hanford reservation, the Nevada Test Site, and the Savannah
and Clinch nuclear facilities, all so contaminated that a solution may
not even be feasible.
- Some will argue that the above visionary plan was (and
is) unrealistically utopiantoo much to expect of any US
president, let alone the Clinton White House. But I take strong exception
with this viewpoint, because in the 1990s the transition I have described
was already within reach. Few major technological breakthroughs were needed.
Many of the important alternatives were already "on the shelf"
and could have been brought to maturity without undue economic strain.
Some, no doubt, would have become mainstream long since but for bureaucratic
inertia and because powerful vested interests have actively suppressed
theminterests, I should add, that have long sought to keep
America addicted to oil. No, what was needed more than anything was genuine
leadership in the Clinton White House, in order to beak through the inertial
barriers and confront the vested interests. What is the role of a president,
after all, if not to use the power of his office (the bully pulpit) to
catalyze changes that are needed for the good of the nation? This is precisely
why a president must stand above special interests. In the early years
of his presidency Clinton did not lack for popular support. A solid majority
of the American people elected Clinton because they wanted change; and
they looked to him to make the tough decisions. This is not just my opinion.
Other commentators have also pointed this out. Bill Clinton entered office
with tremendous political capital, yet, incredibly, he never used it. The
crucial factor was leadership, and he simply failed to deliver. There are
various theories as to why. Dr. Caldicott's frank assessment will make
Democrats uncomfortable, but in my opinion it carries the ring of truth.
Caldicott thinks Clinton lacked the necessary strength of character, and
she has it right.
- Clinton's Nuclear Policy Review:
- A Diminished Presidency?
- Like other newly elected presidents, Bill Clinton soon
ordered a policy review of US nuclear weapons doctrine. The review was
of vital importance and required that Clinton become personally involved
to insure its success. This also meant taking charge of the Pentagon as
the commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, instead of asserting his authority,
Clinton vacillated, as if he were unclear himself about priorities and
objectives. The policy review was eventually delegated to mid-level officials
who were easily outmaneuvered by hard-liners in the military. The generals
opposed any changes in US nuclear policy and they ultimately won a decisive
victory. This was a major defeat for Clinton, and one from which it seems
he never recovered. Caldicott speculates that Clinton, thereafter, sought
to compensate for his loss of standing by using military force abroad on
more occasions than any president in two decades. She may be right. The
point is that Clinton's attempts to placate the Pentagon were no substitute
for leadership. This probably explains why, even today, Clinton is widely
viewed with contempt within the US armed services. Soldiers naturally respect
strength and revile weakness.
- Clinton's diminished presidency did not become evident,
however, for some years. Certainly none of this was immediately obvious.
At the 1995 Nonproliferation Review (NPT) Conference the Clinton administration,
to all appearances, achieved a major success by persuading a majority of
nations to agree to an indefinite extension of the NPT. This success was
probably due to Clinton's vocal support for the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), and because the US delegation agreed to a list of noble
principles reaffirming the US obligation under Article VI of the NPT to
take steps in the near future toward complete disarmament. The world did
not then know that Clinton was about to violate those same principles,
by succumbing to a deal with hard-line elements within his own administration.
This in itself is an indication of Clinton's failed leadership, for only
a weak president would ever agree to such a back-room deal. What was this
deal? The US Department of Energy (DoE), representing the national weapons
labs, agreed to back Clinton's support of the Comprehensible Test Ban only
if Clinton agreed to preserve the labs' traditional role as nuclear overseers;
which, of course, meant preserving the nuclear arsenal itself. And so was
born the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, otherwise known
as Manhattan II. Although its stated purpose seemed innocuous: to insure
the safety and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile, in reality, the
program would maintain various nuclear research and development programs
at roughly Cold War levels for many years. Additionally, the package created
new computational and simulation programs to compensate for the anticipated
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is known that nuclear
research secretly continued at Los Alamosin violation of
the NPT. This came to light in 1995 when Dr. Don Wolkerstorfer, a Los Alamos
manager, mentioned a new bunker buster, the B-61-11, during a radio debate.
The B-61-11 is a variable-yield nuclear penetrator (maximum yield: 340
kilotons). The following year Department of Defense (DoD) spokesperson
Kenneth Bacon revealed that other earth penetrators were also in the works.
Bacon told reporters that "We are now working on a series of weapons,
both nuclear and conventional, to deal with deeply buried targets."
There were even indications that the labs were moving ahead on an even
more ambitious effort to develop the next generation of nuclear weapons.
On April 25, 1997, the physicist Hans Bethe, the most senior surviving
scientist from the Manhattan Project, sent a letter to Clinton, a letter
that one day may have historic significance. In it Bethe urged the president
to halt research on new weapons designs, including a pure fusion bomb,
long regarded as the nuclear Holy Grail. Bethe, who led the theoretical
division at Los Alamos during the development of the Atomic Bomb, was long
retired. Yet, he maintained contacts in the labs and was informed about
the kind of research that was underway. Bethe informed Clinton that the
US already possessed more than sufficient weapons for it security, and
he urged that
- "...the time has come for our Nation to declare
that it is not working, in any way, to develop further weapons of mass
destruction of any kind. In particular, this means not financing work looking
toward the possibility of new designs for nuclear weapons. And it certainly
means not working on new types of nuclear weapons, such as pure-fusion
- Bethe deserved to be taken seriously. After all, he won
the 1967 Nobel Prize in physics for describing the fusion process that
drives the stars. In his letter Bethe further wrote that because "new
types of weapons [i.e., a pure fusion bomb] would, in time, spread to others
and present a threat to us, it is logical for us not to pioneer further
in this field." Although the great physicist affirmed his support
for the stewardship program, he also cautioned that computational experiments
could be used to design new categories of weapons, even in the absence
of underground testing. For this reason Bethe urged Clinton not to fund
such programs. Again, this was sage counsel. It is believed that Israel
evaded international detection while clandestinely developing nuclear weapons
by this very means, i.e., through the use of computational models and computer
simulations. Israel, which has never signed the NPT, is known to have staged
only a very few small nuclear tests, perhaps even as few as one. Yet,
Israel succeeded in developing a large and advanced nuclear arsenal. Six
weeks later Bethe received a polite reply from Clinton, in which the president
deftly side-stepped all of the main points Bethe had raised.
- Just five months later, in November 1997, Clinton issued
a presidential directive, PDD-60, formalizing the outcome of his nuclear
policy review. Most of the document remained classified, but more than
enough was released to serve notice to the world that the United States
had now become a far greater threat to the nonproliferation treaty than
any terrorist or rogue state. Clinton's directive flew squarely in the
face of the noble principles he had agreed to at the 1995 NPT conference.
The directive reaffirmed the logic of the Cold War and announced a cornucopia
of new spending to be showered upon the nuclear establishment over the
next two decades. The directive announced that the US would maintain the
status quo, that is, the Cold War triad of nuclear forces (i.e., bombers,
ICBMs and submarines) as well as the hair-trigger launch-on-warning posture.
The US insisted upon the right to nuclear first-use and even the right
to use nukes against non-nuclear states that might somehow threaten US
"interests." These shocking revelations were unprecedented. The
US also rejected a Russian proposal for deeper cuts in the number of strategic
warheads. Instead, the US would move ahead with plans to upgrade the US
Trident missile force and the B-2 bomber. The US would also resume production
of plutonium pits, which are the fissile cores used in nuclear weapons.
The directive reaffirmed the new emphasis on sub-critical testing and advanced
computer modeling procedures: the very thing that Hans Bethe had cautioned
against. Additionally, the US announced that it would resume production
of tritium, an isotope of hydrogen used in thermonuclear weapons. The stated
purpose was to provide additional supplies for the stewardship program.
Because tritium has a half-life of twelve years, the tritium gas used in
nuclear weapons decays and periodically must be replenished. Even so, the
explanation was dubious, since tritium can be scavenged from deactivated
weapons and recycled. Given even modest reductions in the size of the US
nuclear force, in 1997 there was at least a thirty-year supply for the
stewardship program. This hinted that Hans Bethe was correct and the
US was already secretly developing the next generation of nukes. As if
all of this were not enough, the directive also announced that the US would
complete construction of a brand new National Ignition Facility (NIF) at
the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, where the world's most powerful lasers
would be used to study nuclear fusionanother clue.
- These policies had been decided with no public debate
or consultations with Congress. Ten years later, it appears that Clinton
had made a bargain with the devil. He may have acted in the mistaken belief
that the much-anticipated ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban by
the US Senate would provide him some flexibility, allowing him to later
rescind at least some of the newly announced policies. As we know, of course,
in 1998 the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the Test Ban, dealing
Clinton a stinging defeat. Obviously, Clinton's attempts to placate the
militarists in his administration backfired, with the tragic result of
locking the US into a Cold War posture for many years to come, even though
the Cold War was long over. All of which raises serious questions about
Bill Clinton's style of leadership, or lack thereof. But his character
issues were not limited to placating generals. The more fundamental problem
is that he chose to serve a small group of rich and powerful men, instead
of serving the nation.
- Clinton's Expansion of NATO
- For many years, during the Cold War, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) was the first line of defense against a possible
Soviet attack on Western Europe. But when the old Soviet state collapsed
in the late 1980s during the presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev, NATO's original
purpose also ceased to exist. Later, when the Berlin wall came down, President
George Bush Sr. assured Gorbachev that the US would not expand NATO into
eastern Europe, if Russia did not oppose the reunification of Germany.
The agreement was mutually beneficial, and Russia was true to its word.
However, during his second term in the White House Clinton reneged on Bush's
promise by proposing to admit eastern European nations to the NATO alliance,
starting with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Clinton's Secretary
of State, Madeleine Albright, went on tour promoting the new plan. She
argued that NATO expansion was a good idea because it would stabilize central
Europe politically and economically. Thoughtful critics, however, such
as former Senator Sam Nunn (R-GA), a long-time expert on US nuclear policy,
pointed out that because Moscow would naturally view the eastward expansion
of NATO as a threat to its national security, the probable consequence
would be exactly the opposite. Clinton's plan would destabilize Europe,
stall progress toward arms reductions, and over the long term might even
lead to a new Cold War. The critics also warned that the US taxpayer would
pick up much of the tab for NATO expansion to the tune of many billions
of dollars, most of which would end up in the bank accounts of various
arms merchants. Yet, in 1998, with almost no debate the US Congress closed
ranks behind Clinton and voted to support NATO expansion.
- With hindsight, the critics were correct. Despite claims
by the Clinton administration to the contrary, the expansion of NATO into
eastern Europe was not in the best interests of the United States, nor
in the best interests of Europe. At the time, the relatively poor nations
of eastern Europe did not have money to waste on arms. Their top priority
was to rebuild their infrastructure after the disaster of communism, and
to improve the lives of their people. Of course, Washington promised that
in return for purchasing our weapons the US would support their entry in
the European Union (EU), which most of western Europe opposed at the time.
Yet, this was an illusion, since their purchase of large quantities of
US weapons actually slowed their economic recovery, and this more than
anything delayed their entry into the European Union. No, the primary beneficiaries
of NATO expansion were the US arms makers and their financial backers on
Wall Street. All of whom saw in the break-up of the former Soviet bloc
an opportunity to enrich themselves. A scurrilous lot, they can only be
compared with the wave of carpetbaggers who infested the southern states
after the American Civil War, for the purpose of exploiting the defeated
Confederacy. The US arms industry, the world's largest, spent millions
successfully lobbying the US Congress and the Clinton administration to
expand NATO, and subsequently they cashed-in on this vast new arms bazaar.
As early as 1995 Clinton had telegraphed his obeisance to these same powerful
interests when he issued presidential directive 41, which announced that
arms sales were essential for preserving US jobs. The directive instructed
US diplomats to get busy and boost foreign sales of US-made weapons for
the good of the economy. Obviously, Clinton found it easier to maintain
the status quo, however perilous, rather than use the considerable power
of his office to change that reality and move the nation away from the
weapons economy built up during the Cold War. When Moscow protested the
expansion of NATO Clinton brushed aside Russia's security concerns with
practiced aplomb. The president insisted that NATO was a force for stability,
and his casual demeanor seemed to make light of this quaint idea that NATO
might somehow threaten the Russians. How absurd!
- Today, of course, as George W. Bush prepares to install
an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system in Poland and a new ABM radar site
in the Czech Republic, on Russia's doorstep, and as we hover on the brink
of world war, it is perfectly clear that Moscow's concerns were well-founded.
The issue is why our former president, a Rhodes scholar, was purblind to
the fact, ten years ago. The truth is that Bill Clinton's expansion of
NATO was never about the stability of Europe. It was never about US or
global security. It was always about one thing: the sale of weapons for
profit. All of this becomes more obvious as the world situation deteriorates,
yet, the Democratic candidates in the presidential marathon apparently
still don't get it. As far as I can tell, they have been conspicuously
silent about Clinton's failed NATO policy. Which I take as a sober commentary
on our deaf and dumb political culture. Someone needs to corner Hillary
and ask her this pointed question, on camera: Why did your husband put
the interests of the weapons manufacturers and bankers above the interests
of our nation and our planet? Why, Hillary? Because there is no doubt that
Bill's NATO policy set the stage for the disasters that have overtaken
us. Perhaps the real issue is whether Hillary, or any of the Democratic
front-runners, have the integrity and courage to answer a simple question.
- Mark H. Gaffney's latest book, Gnostic Secrets of the
Naassenes, was a finalist for the 2004 Narcissus Book Award. Mark can be
reached for comment at <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com
Check out Mark's web site www.GnosticSecrets.com
-  Helen Caldicott and Craig Eisendrath, War in Heaven:
The Arms Race and Outer Space, The New Press, New York, 2007, p. ix; also
see Helen Caldicott, The New Nuclear Danger, The New Press, New York, 2004.
-  Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, St. Martin's Griffin,
New York, 1982.
-  Broadcast by radio station KSFR in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, on July 18, 1995. For more details about the B-61-11 go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
-  Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public
Affairs), DoD News Briefing, Tuesday April 23, 1996.
-  The text of Bethe's letter, and Clinton's reply,
have been posted by the Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/bethecr#letter
-  Mark Gaffney, Dimona: The Third Temple?, Amana Books,
Brattleboro, 1989, chapters 4 and 5.
-  For an excellent discussion of PDD-60 see Rear
Admiral Eugene Carroll, USN (ret), "The NPT Review -- Last Chance?",
The Defense Monitor, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, 2000. Posted at http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue3/NPT.html
-  Kenneth D. Bergeron, Tritium On Ice, MIT Press, 2002.
Also see Charles D. Ferguson's review in the March/April 2003 issue of
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (vol. 59, no. 02) pp. 70-72.