Fifty years after bombing of Hiroshima, the “nuclear option” is alive and well in the Oval Office. President Clinton set the tone in July 1993, by threatening North Korea with atomic attack. In 1995, Clinton refused to apologize for America’s use of nuclear weapons against civilian population in Japan and proceeded to approve a Nuclear policy Review that calls for expansion of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. At the same time, France and China announced their plan for large scale nuclear tests. Lots of people in different nations criticized these two countries for their actions. Contrast to what they said, I believe those nuclear tests were necessary and such tests in the future can also be justified.

Basically, there are three main reasons for conducting nuclear tests.

One is to develop new nuclear arsenal or improve an existing nuclear weapon. The French and Chinese nuclear tests come under this category. However, in more definite terms, the Chinese nuclear tests are being conducted in order to develop a new nuclear weapons system, while the French nuclear test are being conducted in order to improve on the nuclear warhead portion of the already-developed SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) and Air-to-Surface missiles. France expected to have to conduct some 20 tests by 1996. However, they finally cut it to eight times under the pressure from other nations.

Another reason for conducting nuclear tests is to select some of the many nuclear weapons which have already been developed and deployed, and test them to see whether the dependability and safety upon designing and production is still being maintained. A nuclear power needs to occasionally do small scale tests to verify theoretical results. No one can be sure absolutely that a specific configuration will work unless it is tested. Many of the nuclear tests conducted by American and Russia come under this category. As the British nuclear arms are leased from America, they have access to American nuclear test data, meaning that they do not need to conduct much nuclear testing of their own, but the nature of their nuclear tests would be of the same as America and Russia.

The third reason, probably the most important one of all, is deterrence. The only time nuclear weapons were used was during World War II against Japan. It effectively ended the war without future casualties for the Allies. Had America not used the nuclear weapons, the fight would be devastating for American soldiers because Japanese soldiers and civilians would fight until the last person to defend their country and their Emperor. Even after the second atomic bomb in Nagasaki, it took Japanese one week to finally surrender. Then why anyone would want to have nuclear weapons, especially after seeing what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Very obviously, it was nuclear deterrence which had prevented a major war from taking place in Europe between East and West for more than forty years. Nuclear tests today are much more powerful than the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the one country has nuclear weapons that work, others are not likely to attack them. Nuclear weapons actually serve purposes beyond that of weapons of mass destruction. They can also provide a nation with an instant voice in world, or at least regional affairs. Automatic power and recognition come with the ownership of nuclear arms, and that fact has not been lost on the world’s developing powers.

These are the primary reasons that nations should continue to pursue the development of nuclear weapons and to conduct nuclear tests today. Nuclear proliferation is also cyclical, once one nation develops nuclear weapons, its neighbors and enemies will also develop them to achieve a balance. That can easily be seen in the Cold War. Nuclear proliferation will not end anytime soon, and we must do our best to live with that fact, to continue nuclear tests.

Now the American and the Russians are disarming their nuclear warheads as they should (they had accumulated several thousand warheads which could destroy the Earth several hundred times). However, retaining some nuclear weapons is an insurance on the future though no one would want to use them first. The fact is that we do NOT know yet what the world will be like thirty years from now. Every nation has the right to develop and refine their nuclear weapons through nuclear tests to ensure the balance and peace of the future world.

Nuclear Testing

Since the first nuclear test at Alamagordo, New Mexico, in July 1945, the five major nuclear weapons states — the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, and China — plus India have conducted 2,044 nuclear tests: on average one every nine days for the past 50 years. Every test has produced environmental contamination, helped to develop new weapons, and added to the arsenals of the nuclear states. Even with the end of the Cold War, nuclear testing continues, a reminder that the nuclear arms race is not over.

A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Since the 1950s, opposition to nuclear testing has been spurred by concerns over its health and environmental effects and by testing being one of the more visible signs of the nuclear arms race. Most recently, in 1995-1996, massive worldwide criticism of French nuclear tests in the South Pacific, caused France to curtail its test program. Public opposition and the dangers of an arms race fueled by nuclear testing have lead governments to try to limit and stop nuclear testing for over 40 years. Finally, following the adoption of a unanimous resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, the Conference on Disarmament began negotiations on a CTBT to end nuclear testing for all time. These historic negotiations have gathered widespread support. In 1995, the 170 nations participating in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference in New York in May, said a CTBT should be completed no later than 1996. This was reaffirmed by a United Nations resolution in November 1995.

In mid-May, when the negotiations for a CTBT reopen at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, the 37 countries in the CD will have just seven weeks to complete their work if a treaty is to be ready for signing in September at the outset of the United Nations General Assembly’s 51st session. If the CD delegates cannot agree the text of the treaty by the end of June, the chance to have a CTBT will have slipped away again, perhaps forever.

One of the key points of disagreement remaining is the CTBT’s scope, i.e. what will banned by the treaty. At the Moscow Nuclear Safety Summit, Russia at last joined France, the U.S., and the U.K. in agreeing that the CTBT should ban all nuclear explosions regardless of their size and regardless of whether they explosions are said to be for military or peaceful purposes (the so-called ‘0-yield CTBT’). Of the five ‘official’ nuclear powers, only China has not agreed to a 0-yield CTBT, wanting to preserve the option to conduct ‘Peaceful Nuclear Explosions’ for civilian purposes.

Another important political problem to be resolved is the Preamble of the Treaty. The U.S. and other nuclear powers are opposed to including language in the Preamble that refers to the need for further specific steps towards nuclear disarmament steps. There are also several technical and political issues regarding verification and the treaty’s entry into force which also need to be settled urgently.

Several external events also may derail the CTBT talks. First, and most importantly, China still plans to conduct nuclear weapons tests and has said that it halt testing only when the treaty enters into force — at least several years away. Testing during the talks or until the treaty enters into force may delay the negotiations or the application of the treaty.

Second, the U.S. has plans to conduct so-called sub-critical nuclear tests in June and September and continue this program in 1997 (and beyond). Although these tests should not involve a nuclear explosion and so would not be banned by a 0-yield CTBT, they will use fissile materials and be conducted underground. The sophistication of these sub-critical tests may mean they could be used to develop new nuclear weapons or improve or perfect existing ones, thus calling into doubt one of U.S. President Clinton’s stated goals for the CTBT — in January 1996, he told the U.S. Congress that the CTBT “must end the race to create new nuclear weapons.”

Finally, there are fears that tensions in South Asia may lead India to conduct another nuclear test and so delay completion of the treaty.

The CTBT and Beyond

A CTBT is a crucial step toward achieving nuclear disarmament and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A CTBT will make it much harder for the nuclear weapons powers and the handful of non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear ambitions to develop new nuclear weapons. Getting a CTBT in place will clear the way for additional disarmament measures. By prohibiting all nuclear explosions, a CTBT also would reduce the risks to health and the environment.

The CTBT, however, is just a first step toward nuclear disarmament. There are 21,000 nuclear weapons in the world today — 95 percent in the hands of the U.S. and Russia. It is obvious that once a CTBT is signed, several more nuclear disarmament steps must follow in order to fulfill the promise to halt the nuclear arms race and eliminate nuclear weapons.

First, to strengthen the CTBT and make it irrevocable, the rest of nuclear weapons states should follow the example of France and close their nuclear weapons test sites. The nuclear weapons states should also forgo underground sub-critical tests. Their ambiguous purpose undermines the goals of the CTBT and they will complicate the verification of a CTBT. Also, they should declare as a matter of policy no new nuclear weapons will be designed or built.

Second, the U.S. and Russia must move immediately to negotiate deeper reductions in their massive nuclear arsenals, and to withdraw any remaining nuclear weapons from overseas. Production of new nuclear weapons systems, like strategic nuclear submarines and new nuclear missiles should be stopped. The U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and western Russia and weapons carried at sea should be withdrawn and eliminated: Europe should join the growing list of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones around the world and the world’s oceans should be made nuclear free.

Third, the other nuclear weapons states, the U.K., France, and China need to join discussions on reducing and eliminating their nuclear weapons. Israeli nuclear weapons need to be addressed in the context of the Middle East peace process.

Finally, the production of fissile materials needs to stop and international control needs to be established over fissile materials and dismantled weapons to ensure the disarmament process is irreversible.

World Nuclear Tests

World Operational Nuclear Arsenals, 1996

On March 21, 1995, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Bill Archer, Republican from Texas, gave a speech in favor of a set of drastic measures summarized in a bill, H. R. 4, along with other Republicans and Democrats. The bill passed the Republican-dominated House on March 24, 1995, by a vote of 234 to 199. A Senate version was passed in December, but in January, 1996, President Clinton vetoed it because it “cut too deeply into benefits.”

The speech given by Representative Bill Archer was eloquent, with some good statistical data. He explained the three principles behind H. R. 4, they are:

“Personal responsibility, work, and returning power over welfare to our States and communities where the needy can be helped in the most efficient way.” (Archer, 318)

He was strongly agreed with the drastic measures in H. R. 4. He claimed that “The time has come to replace this failed system with a new system that uplifts our Nation’s poor, …… It represents a historic shift, long overdue.” (Archer, 319)

However, there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of his analysis. If our economy seems to require about 6% “structural” unemployment to keep wage demands and inflation in check (and Wall Street happy), who is going to volunteer to turn in their jobs so that all of these welfare folk can get busy?

Welfare needed reforming. Its problems have been well documented and I won’t waste my wind. The largest problem to my mind has been the dependancy that sets in and robs many of those participating in the system of any motivation to do better. But welfare had many successes, too, the hidden kind. A full stomach. A roof over the head. The kinds of successes that are hard to script a headline around.

So we plan to head back to the states, assured that they will do a better job. But are fifty bureaucracies better than one? And didn’t they already have a substantial role in the system that everyone has decried as a failure? Oh, I know, it was just some of these stupid Federal mandates that made them do foolish things, insisted that they meet the needs of their communities. We lose the economies of scale that a centralized system brings. Can you imagine fifty presses firing up across the country to print food stamps, each looking suspiciously like civil war currency? The idea that fifty systems are inherently better than one stands logic on its own head.

So we have fifty systems, each (we are assured) with the best interest of its citizens at heart. Not that we are going to do anything to attract another state’s citizens, mind you. No, better to give them some of our problems – I mean, citizens, to be taken care of over THERE. How do we encourage them – get tough. How do we attract them – let’s not find out. So who can get tougher? Who’s the toughest? Like neighborhood bullies, each vying to keep his or her turf cleared of undesirables, the states will sink to the lowest common denominator permissible under law – yes, that’s Federal law.

And legal immigrants, no matter whether they’ve paid their taxes, or served in the military, or paid their dues. Safety net, hah! Better fill out that citizenship application today! Haven’t met the residency requirements? Better stay employed! Lost your job? Better go back home. Have a nice swim!

The real tragedy of all of this is what we create with such policies – desperation. Being a parent, I know how I would react if my children were hungry and I had few options. The legality of behavior wouldn’t matter much. Sell drugs, my body, or steal. What else could I do? We are creating predators with no sense of remorse. They are doing the right thing, because it puts food in the mouths of their children. Little else matters. Desperation is a poor corner to be painted into and we have too many corners, too many ghettoes, too many holes where cornered people, like animals, will turn and attack.

It does no good to demand that people get jobs when there are none available.

It does no good to demand that mothers get a job when the cost of day care vastly exceeds the wages they may receive.

It does no good to insist that they participate in drug treatment programs when all such programs in their community are booked for months.

It DOES make sense to help them train for a good job so that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.

It DOES make sense to provide them with medical and dental care so that when they take a “no/low benefit” job they don’t lose this protection.

It DOES make sense to encourage parents to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world. This includes trying to determine the father and getting him involved in caring for the children. This includes prosecution of statutory rape, but instead of compounding the problem by sending dad to prison, send him to work – hard work – to support his child.

It DOES make sense to have young mothers live at home, except when that home is dysfunctional. Then, group homes with job training, day care, drug treatment/resistance education, and a sense of community support are the best approach.

It DOES make sense to have family planning and sex education programs, starting at an early age. It does make sense to insure that these kids have access to birth control when they need it most. It does make sense to provide them with counseling and yes, abortion services when having a child is not in the best interest of mother OR child.

If there are no jobs, if there is a need for a pool of unemployed, then make government, at whatever level, the employer of last resort. Get some job experience into them for the government dollars paid out, but don’t try to continue the myth that there are jobs for all that want them AND those we demand go to work to salve our personal work ethic.

One of the cruelest moments in Archer’s argument was the denial of vouchers for medicine, school supplies, and diapers for those children whose parents had been cut off from benefits. Taking care of things the right way, the best way, is not the cheapest way. We as taxpayers are tired of paying for endless poverty, but I think we would be willing to pay a little more for programs that work, that solve problems instead of perpetuating or accelerating them.

This is a wealthy country – we waste more in a day than it would take to feed, clothe, and house all of America’s children. We need to prove to ourselves and the world that our hearts are not hardened by the sight of the poor, but that our eyes are open to the solutions that work and the potential that exists.

In one word, Bill Archer was wrong. We do need a welfare reform, but we do not want to see something so drastic like H. R. 4, which would destroy what we already have had and done. I am glad that President Clinton vetoed it.

Works Cited

Archer, Bill. “Welfare Reform: Pro” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Beherens, Laurence and Rosen, J. Leonard. 6th Edition. Longman

For centuries governments have tried to regulate materials deemed inappropriate or offensive. The history of western censorship was said to have begun when Socrates was accused “firstly, of denying the gods recognized by the State and introducing new divinities, and secondly of corrupting the young” . He was sentenced to death for these crimes. Many modern governments are attempting to control access to the Internet. They are passing regulations that restrict the freedom people once took for granted. The Internet is a world wide network that should not be regulated or censored by any one country. It is a complex and limitless network which allows boundless possibilities and would be effected negatively by the regulations and censorship that some countries are intent on establishing. Laws that are meant for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium. There are no physical locations where communications take place, making it difficult to determine where violations of the law should be prosecuted. There is anonymity on the Internet and so ages and identities are not known. This makes it hard to determine if illegal activities are taking place in regards to people under the legal age. As well, it is difficult to completely delete speech once it has been posted, meaning that distributing materials that are obscene or banned becomes easy.

The American Library Association has a definition that states censorship is “the change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.” This definition, however, has a flaw in that it only recognizes one form of censorship – governmental censorship. Cyberspace, a common name for the Net, has been defined by one author as being “made up of millions of people who communicate with one another through computers.” It is not just people that make up cyberspace. It is also “information stored on millions of computers worldwide, accessible to others through telephone lines and other communication channels” that “make up what is known as cyberspace.” The same author went on to say “The term itself is elusive, since it is not so much a physical entity as a description of an intangible.”

The complexity of the Internet is demonstrated through its many components. The most readily identifiable part is the World Wide Web (WWW). This consists of web pages that can be accessed through the use of a web browser. Web pages are created using a basic programming language. Another easily identified section of the Internet is e-mail. Once again it is a relatively user-friendly communication device. Some other less publicized sections of the Internet include : Internet Relay Chat (IRC), which allows real time chatting to occur among thousands of people, Gopher, which works similarly to the WWW but for a more academic purpose, and File Transfer Protocol (FTP), which allows the transfer of files from one computer to another. Another service that is not Internet but is carried along with it in many instances is Usenet or News. In Usenet there are many newsgroups which center their conversations on many varied topics. For example, rec.music.beatles would focus the discussion on the Beatles. This would be done through posts or articles, almost like letters sent into a large pot where everyone can read and reply. Many controversial newsgroups exist and they are created easily. It is possible to transfer obscene and pornographic material through these newsgroups.

There is no accurate way to determine how many people are connected to the Internet because the number grows exponentially everyday. Figures become obsolete before they can be published. “[The Internet] started as a military strategy and, over thirty years later, has evolved into the massive networking of over 3 million computers worldwide” One of the most prominent features of the young Internet was its freedom. It is “a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy…there are no official censors, no bosses, no board of directors, no stockholders” It’s an open forum where the only thing holding anyone back is a conscience. The Internet has “no central authority” and therefore it makes it difficult to be censored. As a result of these and more, the Internet offers potential for a true democracy. The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Internet with respect to these issues.

Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.. Through all the components of the Internet it becomes easy to transfer material that particular governments might find objectionable. However, all of these means of communicating on the Internet make up a large and vast system. For inspectors to monitor every E-mail, every article in every Newsgroup, every Webpage, every IRC channel, every Gopher site and every FTP site would be near impossible. Besides taking an extraordinary amount of money and time, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech rights that are included in democratic constitutions and international laws. It would be a breach of the First Amendment. The Constitution of the United States of America declares that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Therefore it would be unconstitutional for any sort of censorship to occur on the Internet and affiliated services. Despite the illegality, restrictions on Internet access and content are increasing world-wide under all forms of government. In France, a country where the press generally have a large amount of freedom, the Internet has recently been in the spotlight. A banned book on the health history of former French president Francois Mitterrand was republished electronically on the World Wide Web (WWW). Apparently, the electronic reproduction of Le Grand Secret by a third party wasn’t banned by a court that ruled that the printed version of the book unlawfully violated Mitterrand’s privacy.

To enforce censorship of the Internet, free societies find that they become more repressive and closed societies find new ways to crush political expression and opposition. Vice – President Al Gore, while at an international conference in Brussels about the Internet, in a keynote address said that “[Cyberspace] is about protecting and enlarging freedom of expression for all our citizens . Ideas should not be checked at the border” Another person attending that conference was Ann Breeson of the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to preserving many things including free speech. She is quoted as saying “Our big victory at Brussels was that we pressured them enough so that Al Gore in his keynote address made a big point of stressing the importance of free speech on the Internet.” Many other organizations have fought against laws and have succeeded. A prime example of this is the fight that various groups put on against the recent Communication Decency Act (CDA) of the U.S. Senate. The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition on 26 February 1996 filed a historic lawsuit in Philadelphia against the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Janet Reno to make certain that the First Amendment of the U.S.A. would not be compromised by the CDA. The sheer range of plaintiffs alone, including the American Booksellers Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, Apple, Microsoft, America Online, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Commercial Internet eXchange Association, Wired, and HotWired, as well as thousands of netizens (citizens of the Internet) shows the dedication that is felt by many different people and groups to the cause of free speech on the Internet.

“Words like shit, fuck, piss, and tits. Words of which our mothers (at least some of them) would no doubt disapprove, but which by no means should be regulated by the government. But it’s not just about dirty words. It’s also about words like AIDS, gay, and breasts. It’s about sexual content, and politically controversial topics like drug addiction, euthanasia, and racism.”

Just recently in France, a high court has struck down a bill that promoted the censorship of the Internet. Other countries have attempted similar moves. The Internet cannot be regulated in the way of other mediums simply because it is not the same as anything else that we have. It is an totally new and unique form of communication and deserves to be given a chance to prove itself. Laws of one country can not hold jurisdiction in another country and holds true on the Internet because it has no borders.

Although North America (mainly the United States) has the largest share of servers, the Internet is still a world-wide network. This means that domestic regulations cannot oversee the rules of foreign countries. It would be just as easy for an American teen to download (receive) pornographic material from England, as it would be from down the street. One of the major problems is the lack of physical boundaries, making it difficult to determine where violations of the law should be prosecuted. There is no one place through which all information passes through. That was one of the key points that was stressed during the original days of the Internet, then called ARPANET. It started out as a defense project that would allow communication in the event of an emergency such as nuclear attack. Without a central authority, information would pass around until it got where it was going. Something like a road system. It is not necessary to take any specific route but rather anyone goes. In the same way the information on the Internet starts out and eventually gets to it’s destination.

The Internet is full of anonymity. Since text is the standard form of communication on the Internet it becomes difficult to determine the identity and/or age of a specific person. Nothing is known for certain about a person accessing content. There are no signatures or photo-ids on the Internet therefore it is difficult to certify that illegal activities (regarding minors accessing restricted data) are taking place. Take for example a conversation on IRC. Two people could people talking to one another, but all that they see is text. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the gender and/or age just from communication of this sort. Then if the conversationalist lies about any points mentioned above it would be extremely difficult to know or prove otherwise. In this way governments could not restrict access to certain sites on the basis of ages. A thirteen year old boy in British Columbia could decide that he wanted to download pornography from an adult site in the U.S. The site may have warnings and age restrictions but they have no way of stopping him from receiving their material if he says he is 19 years of age when prompted.

The complexity in the way information is passed around the Internet means that if information has been posted, deleting this material becomes almost impossible. A good example of this is the junk-mail that people refer to as spam. These include e-mails advertising products, usenet articles that are open for flames. Flames are heated letters that many times have no founding behind them. These seem to float around for ages before dying out because they are perfect material for flamewars. Flamewars are long, drawn out and highly heated discussions consisting of flames which often time obscenely slander one’s reputation and personae. Mostly these are immature arguments that are totally pointless except to those involved. The millions of people that participate on the Internet everyday have access to almost all of the data present. As well it becomes easy to copy something that exists on the Internet with only a click of a button. The relative ease of copying data means that the second information is posted to the Internet it may be archived somewhere else. There are in fact many sites on the Internet that are devoted to the archiving of information including: ftp.cdrom.com, which archives an extraordinary amount of software among others, www.archive.org, which is working towards archiving as much of the WWW as possible, and wuarchive.wustl.edu, which is dedicated towards archiving software, publications, and many other types of data. It becomes hard to censor material that might be duplicated or triplicated within a matter of minutes. An example could be the recent hacking of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Homepage and the hacking of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Homepage. Someone illegally obtained access to the computer on which these homepages were stored and modified them. It was done as a prank, however, both of these agencies have since shut down their pages. 2600 (www.2600.com), a magazine devoted to hacking, has republished the hacked DoJ and CIA homepages on their website. The magazine either copied the data straight from the hacked sites or the hacked site was submitted to the magazine. I don’t know which one is true but it does show the ease that data can be copied and distributed, as well it shows the difficulty in preventing material deemed inappropriate from appearing where it shouldn’t. The Internet is much too complex a network for censorship to effectively occur. It is a totally new and unique environment in which communications transpire. Existing laws are not applicable to this medium. The lack of tangible boundaries cause confusion as to where violations of law take place. The Internet is made up of nameless interaction and anonymous communication. The intricacy of the Internet makes it near impossible to delete data that has been publicized. No one country should be allowed to, or could, regulate or censor the Internet.

Works Cited

Bradford, Bryan and Mark Krumholz. “Telecommunications and Decency: Big Brother goes Digital.” Business Today Spring 1996 : 12-16.

Gates, Bill. “Searching for middle ground in online censorship” . 27 Mar. 1996.

Irwin, Heather. “Geeks Take to the Streets” .

Jefferson, Thomas. “Bill Of Rights.” The Constitution of the United States. 21 Apr. 1996.

McCullagh, Declan. “PLAGUE OF FREEDOM” Internet Underground Aug 96 – Issue 09. 31 July 1996.

Silberman, Steve. “Defending the First Amendment.”

“Silencing the Net–The Threat to Freedom of Expression Online.” Human Rights Watch May 1996, Vol. 8, No. 2 (G).

Steele, Shari. “Taking a Byte Out of the First Amendment. How Free Is Speech in Cyberspace?” Human Rights Vol. 23, No.2. Spring 1996.

Sterling, Bruce. “Short History of the Internet.” The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction Feb 1993. 17 Apr. 1996.