Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links

Flyby  News

"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"

Campaign to Ban Space-Based Weapons Bush: "Limit 9/11 Probe"? Space Nukes

Space for Peace & September 11
Connecting dots to democracy or to genocide

This Page was Originally Posted on 01 February 2002

For Immediate Release:
Institute for Cooperation in Space
Contact: Carol Rosin; Telephone: 805-641-1999 E-mail:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduces legislation to ban space-based weapons. Kucinich says, "We signed the ABM treaty nearly 30 years ago; which requires a reduction in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Weaponization of space clearly violates that treaty. My bill will call for an immediate and permanent termination of research, testing, manufacturing, production and deployment of all space-based weapons systems and components by any person, agency or contractor of the U.S. government ."

--- Ban Weapons from Space before the ABM gets Trashed ---

Flyby Action -- Call Your Reps this week. Ask for their co-sponsoring and support of H.R. 3616. Tell them that the banning of space-based weapons would cap the arms race, and unite the world for peace and stability. It could help the economy and help transform Industries benefitting from war, to benefit from peace and preserving our natural environment.

The Congressional Switchboard telephone number is 202-224-3121

Go read the text of H.R. 3616 and link to an online fax system in support of H.R. 3616 .

Also, support the World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons

For more information, visit: The Institute for Cooperation in Space and The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

And keep tuned in with Flyby News.

For updated information on Congressman Kucinich and his work to stop the attack on Iraq, to ban space-based weapons, and for a US Department of Peace, and more, see Flyby News' resources on Dennis J. Kucinich

02 February 2009 - The Telegraph - WikiLeaks
US and China in military standoff over space missiles

The following are links to Flyby News Archives on campaign to ban space-based weapons:

February 25, 2005 - Item 1
Canada opts out of U.S. defense shield

February 7, 2003 - Item 3
In Columbia's Wake - Nukes-in-Space

January 12, 2003 - Item 1
Speech in Canada for Space Preservation Treaty

January 9, 2003 - Item 5
Comment on NASA's Nuke-Mars Mission

January 6, 2003 - Item 4
Judge Allows Bush's Withdrawal from ABM Treaty to Stand

January 4, 2003 - Item 3
Evolutionary Politics: Representative Dennis J. Kucinich

December 20, 2002 - Item 1
Star Wars Further Destabilizes the World

July 4, 2002 - Items 1 & 2
(1) Peace In Space & On Earth - Kucinich Videos Released & (2) ABM Treaty still lives!

June 12, 2002 - Item 1
Lawsuit to stop withdrawal from ABM Treaty

June 4, 2002 - Item 2
ABM Demise -- Bombs away

May 18, 2002 - Item 2
Bush Wins the Final Battle for Star Wars?

May 13, 2002 - Item 1
Kucinich for US President - Head them off at the pass

May 1, 2002 - Item 1
Canada could prevent weaponization of space

February 25, 2002 - Items 1, 2, 3,
ABM Treaty Hanging * Nuclear Theft Confirmed * Kucinich on war economy
"How Can We Justify This?" By Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio)

March 9, 2002 - Items 2 and 3
"Kucinich Rocks the Boat" + Carol Rosin reports on Peace in Space kick-off event

April 23, 2002 - Item 1
"Kucinich Is the One", article by Studs Terkel

Kucinich in 2004 and the Space Preservation Act of 2002

To contact Dennis Kucinich, write to:
United States Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio)
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5871
Fax: (202) 225-5745

1) Changes in HR 3616 from 2977 - email reply by Carol Rosin & additional updated Archive Links
2) Letter to Australian Defence Minister regarding Kucinich Bill
3) Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11 Probes
4) The Return of Space Nuclear Reactors

1) Changes in HR 3616 from 2977 - email reply by Carol Rosin

Excerpts from an E-mail by Carol Rosin

30 Jan 2002

My first notes are going to be long and I really want to help everyone who makes contact really understand the basic philosophy, approach, content, get questions answered from my/our perspective soon I won't have time to write so much and it's my hope that I will have "force multiplied" our efforts here to you so that you can help spread it around, too. I didn't go to bed last night until 730AM and woke up at 9AM...trying to stay caught up. I have over 10,000 emails about all this, mostly supportive, thank heavens. But only a few need answers, and if I have them, each will get an answer like this. I hope this helps you. After a couple more days of this, I'll put more on the website in a more condensed form to answer the common questions in the FAQ. The legislation and compatible World Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons and all the educational material we have put together is on the website. The FAX your congress rep and world leader will be up by the end of this day. Everyone on-line can do's free. We'll change the letters periodically as they need to be updated. And eventually we'll have phone numbers and fax numbers available on that site, for those who need to make copies of them for those in our networks who don't use computers.

The first bottom line is that this is not and never was a chemtrials or psychotronic or electromagnetic weapons is and was a space-based weapons bill to start. Those were only listed as definitions of possible space-based weapons because we all know that if a weapons R&D program exists it could be placed in space. These words were only in there for definition purposes. Nothing else. And they aren't needed as ALL space-based weapons and the use or weapons against objects in orbit will be banned. This is GREAT, and it's what we all need to focus on now. We are NOT going to focus on weapons because that is what we will get if we do...more weapons. We ARE going to focus on what IS in space and what CAN BE in space of a non-space based weapons nature. Because the vision we focus on is what we are going to get. I think more and more of us are beginning to realize that now.

This is a new approach for those of us who are angry with the bombings, the secrets, the lies, and frustrations of working so hard on issues like chemtrails and mind control...and getting virtually no where, feeling helpless, to the point that some really good people are getting outraged and even hostile sometimes. Anyone can understand this. And I'm finding that anyone can understand, too, that there is another that takes place in the context of a whole new way of thinking, a new space paradigm. And now we have the legislative and legal tools for the collective consciousness who can, to rally around. In that context, in the context of the short time in which we have to create a huge new reality that we want...just to make that happen...we don't have time to work with people who get stuck in the old ways...because we want to tap those who know we can get this done IF we rise above all that stuff for now and focus our intent. That is what this will take. And removing definitions, that's all they were, out of a piece of legislation is quite a normal thing to we want a simple and clean bill that will attract other congress members and world leaders to agree too. Keep it simple. It's as simple as that.

Most important, I think, is to let your network know that we can't do things the same old way. If we focus on weapons, we get weapons, It drags us down into another level of the grid which we have learned results in no change except more weapons. The largest R&D program in history is mandated to weaponize space. We will remove that U.S. mandate by turning this and the forthcoming Senate legislation and compatible World Treaty into law. The words chemtrails, psychotronics, etc., were simply put into the legislation for the purpose of listing some sample weapons or weapon systems. That is all people need to know because it is the truth. There is no government line of conspiracy here. This is normal procedure in a bill like this to modify, change, improve and then re-introduce it so it's terms of getting it supported, co-sponsored, and passed.

What is true is that we have a great congressman and champion who has integrity, courage, dedication, and intention to work with and for us to get this bill passed, and we have a World Treaty that is completely compatible with the legislation...that if we work to get into the hands of our national and world leaders we can change the whole paradigm in our the horribly suffering children, the millions of orphans, poor and sick uneducated people and other tortured animals on this planet, build safe and clean technologies that can get our environment stabilized and healthy, and we can start that process with a winnable bill that will cap the arms race.

And we had better do this now, or in June OUR chances are over. We have to build this movement quicker and in more solidarity than we've ever done anything before. This bill, after all, fits with the universal laws and principals and with the Declaration of Human Rights. But you cannot change the truth...and that is what will inevitably be able to be unveiled once this bill is signed into law. But, if we allow weapons to go into space, we will have only more of the the most negative sense. And, we have a June deadline to have this rolling out. Once we introduce the 90 day plan, we'll commit, do it, huddle, and see what we need to do to get the job completed. Timing is of the essence here. We need everyone we can get to start this campaign in mid-Feb., and while it won't obviously be everyone, I'm only here to do my little part, too, it is going to be an amazingly wonderful, not easy but wonderful, experience for all who participate...who can rise above these questions and concerns.

Getting a ban on space-based weapons is so vital it's beyond words. From the angle you work, it's the ONLY way to get the veil of secrecy to our system on this planet, at least. It's the only way to maintain space as a sanctuary for travel to and from earth...and you know what that means. And it's the only way to cap the arms race at the ONLY time in history when it can be Bush can deploy weapons after June 13th above all our heads under the guise of it being "MERELY testing."

Now, talk about mind control...that team has officially announced they plan to "dominate and control" the earth and space from space. ..I believe we can get the ban on space-based weapons and replace the ABM Treaty that Bush will break in June with a WORLD Treaty Banning Space-based Weapons...end the arms race BEFORE it mores into space, and allow the people on this planet begin to experience real healing and life without suffering and with the truth about who we are in these bodies and in the universe(s).

Please now tell me more about you and about your ideas re what you/we can do. How can I help you? And know that most of the material I'm attaching is on the website now for all to share. We'll start the campaign in mid-February...though it is really beginning with people talking about this now. Remember, not many know about the 90 Day Plan. We'll spread it around in mid-February. But for those who hear about it, we are putting our foundations of people and resources, our minds and hearts into place together now.

Thanks for being there and here. I'm with you and all as we form our world family and focus with pure intention to get this ban on space-based weapons passed into law now while we still can.
Remember, people can now fax their leaders from the website.

Thanks so much.
My love in peace,
Carol Rosin
(President, Institute for Cooperation in Space)
90 Day Plan of Action to be introduced in February, see

2) Letter to Australian Defence Minister regarding Kucinich Bill

28 January 2002

Hon Robert Hill
Minister for Defence
Parliament House
Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Mr Hill,

I do hope that you will be interested in the following issue. It could have a very great deal to do with the future well-being of the world's people. US House of Representatives member, Dennis Kucinich has just reintroduced a Bill, (HR 3616), the Space Preservation Act of 2002, a redraft of an earlier Kucinich Bill along the same lines. It calls on the US to ban all research, development, testing, and deployment of space-based weapons and if passed would require the US to enter negotiations toward a World Treaty to Ban Weapons in Space. It is clearly opposed to President Bush's aspirations for control of space through his ballistic missile defence program.

In the past, Australia has been very supportive of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. However, our support (at least implied but possible more explicit) for US plans for ballistic missile defence, seem to have resulted in somewhat of a collapse of any criticism of the US as it withdraws from the ABMT. Once no longer party to the ABMT, there will be no stopping US development of the BMD program. This course is dangerously provocative to Russia and China, and therefore destabilising, potentially leading the world down the track of a renewed nuclear arms race. Hints that the Pentagon may resume underground nuclear testing to maintain the US nuclear weapons stockpile are ominous. Such measures destroy any faith that the US was sincere when it promised, along with other nuclear armed powers, at the NPT Review conference in 2000, to observe an "unequivocal commitment" to total elimination of nuclear weaponry. It is obviously working on the principle that nuclear weapons will continue to exist and that future warfare could call upon these most dreadful of all weapons of mass destruction.

As a long-term ally of the US, should we not be helping our powerful friend to pursue a defence and foreign policy posture that will enhance its potential to be admired and valued, rather than feared and resented? The appalling events of September 11 can never be condoned - but did most horribly demonstrate the low regard held by many in the world's poor (and often Muslim) countries for the US. One way or another, they have analysed their impoverished state and come to conclusions that the US has been implicated in that. Whether this is fair or not, the perception needs addressing, and international relationships need healing.

Results of recent research into global attitudes towards the US by the Pew Research Centre indicated a deep level of discontent and criticism of the "American way" - and in the words of Madeleine Albright (who headed this project), "There is a sense that we are the richest country in the world and we don't share." I was most interested in that study, and re-typed the article on it that appeared in the West Australian, (21.12.2001). In case you are unaware of that study, I will enclose a copy of the article for your interest.

As the world's sole remaining superpower with the capacity to draw an international alliance together for its war on terrorism, could not the US be convinced by its friends that there is another way - beyond military power projection - to use its influence? It could lead the world towards a more equitable state, narrowing the gaping North-South divide - and become 'hero' instead of 'pariah'. The American people want to be loved and find it hard to fathom feelings of angst directed towards their country. Instead of gratitude for US foreign aid and US efforts in peacemaking (such as in the Middle East and also between India and Pakistan), they are puzzled by criticism and much worse. It would be a win-win for the US and the rest of the world if President Bush took a less US-centric view - and decided, in Marilyn Albright's words "to share."

While the US remains so dependent on imported oil, changing its foreign policies is going to be politically and economically exceedingly difficult. A far greater proportion of US technical expertise should be dedicated to R&D to enable a changed energy policy. This should be aimed at renewable energy, increased energy efficiencies - and even simpler (more enjoyable) life styles. This would not, of course, be starting from scratch - as there is much movement in that great country towards such goals already. With more 'official' encouragement, the outstanding energy of the US could really make the significant difference needed to turn things around. and truly earn the admiration and gratitude of the world's people, now and in the future.

Support for the new Kucinich Bill could be part of that strategy. Mr Hill, as Australia's Defence Minister, would you consider urging the Bush Administration to support that Bill?

Yours sincerely,
Judy Blyth
Coordinator, WA Branch of Medical Association for Prevention of War
PO Box 1095, Subiaco WA 6904

3) Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11 Probes

Don't go there: Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11 Probes --
Daschle perplexed by the notion of not looking into 9-11
Date: Wednesday, January 30 @ 10:09:24 EST

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.

The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.

He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said.

Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.

"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.

But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation.

"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.

"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.

Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, "agreed to cooperate with their effort."

The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings.

They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be.

Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters only.

"How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of addressing systemic problems through legislation," said spokesman Paul Anderson.

Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community.

"We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong," Torricelli said.

"The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people," he said.

Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism, privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability.

"We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed?" a Democratic senator told CNN.

CNN Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and CNN Correspondents Jon Karl and John King contributed to this report.

4) The Return of Space Nuclear Reactors

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2002, Issue No. 11
January 31, 2002



For the first time in a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will request funding for development of a space nuclear reactor in the 2003 budget request to be released next week.

Space nuclear reactor technology has followed a boom-and-bust pattern of development since the 1950s. The U.S. launched one space reactor in 1965, a 500 Watt system that operated for 43 days and which remains in orbit. The last U.S. space reactor development program, a joint NASA-Defense Department effort known as the SP-100, was terminated ten years ago following the expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars.

(The Soviet Union had around 30 reactors between 1967 and 1988. The U.S. has launched some two dozen spacecraft utilizing plutonium-powered electrical generators -- which are not reactors -- that produce a low level of electricity, for missions such as the Cassini probe to Saturn in 1997.)

NASA is proposing the new reactor initiative in order to support future space exploration programs, an informed official said. He noted uncertainty about the viability of the program in the current budgetary environment. He also expressed concern about possible attempts to involve the Defense Department in the program, fearing such a move might make it more vulnerable to political opposition.

The use of space nuclear reactors is dictated whenever moderate levels of electrical power (tens of kilowatts or more) are required in space over an extended period of time. The availability of a space nuclear reactor could enable a variety of ambitious space exploration programs such as a multi-decade mission beyond our solar system.

By the same token, space reactors could also be used to power space weapons and other military systems in orbit, attracting the opposition of some arms control advocates and environmentalists.

In an attempt to square this circle, the Federation of American Scientists and Soviet colleagues in 1988 proposed a ban on the operation of nuclear reactors in Earth orbit that would nevertheless permit their use for space exploration.

See "Nuclear Power in Space," Scientific American, June 1991, for background on the checkered history of space reactors and discussion of the FAS proposal.

For some reason there has recently been a small surge of policy interest in space nuclear power, independent of the new NASA initiative.

"Thermionics Quo Vadis?" is the curious title of a new National Research Council report on the status of thermionics, which is an energy conversion technology used in some space reactor designs. The report provides some general information on space nuclear power. See:

The Department of Energy Inspector General reported this month on the administration of DOE's Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program, which provides plutonium-powered electrical generators for NASA missions. See:


=====Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era====>

= = = = = = = = = = =

Email address: