Nuclear Apocalypse on the Horizon?

Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by Minuteman, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    (Right click and select "open in new window" to view any of the embedded links.)
    The following article may sound alarmist, but I really don't think that it is:

    <DIR>Is Dick Cheney Preparing to Blast the World Back to the Stone Age?

    </DIR>Now some might ask, "But if Cheney launches a nuclear attack at Russia, won't that upset the apple cart for everybody?" Yes, of course it will but Cheney seems to think he can actually win such a war. I know, it's crazy but it's true! That's why, as the above article explains, Vladimir Putin is so freaked out. Cheney's brain is operating on a "read only" program that says "grow profits at all costs." This is how the logic goes, I think:

    <DIR>In order to continuing growing, my friends in the oil business need to get their hands on those massive Russian oil reserves
    If we don't go to war, we will never get our hands on those reserves. Thus, if we don't go to war, we have no chance of continuing to growing.
    If we do go to war, we might win and manage to get our hands on the reserves, thus giving us at least some chance of continuing to grow.

    </DIR>Like I said it's crazy. Also of note, there has been a rash of "get ready for nuclear war" type stories in the mainstream media the last month or so:

    <DIR>New York Times: We Are Woefully Unprepared for a Nuclear Attack
    San Francisco Chronicle: Nuclear Terror Threat Demands Readiness

    </DIR>Whenever I bring up this topic, people say "oh we were made to worry about this for 50 years and nothing happened!" Yes, that is true, but what is different today as compared to during the Cold War years? During the Cold War the world's net-energy (ie, wealth) pie was constantly growing. This led to the theory of deterrance as it was in nobody's interest to unleash the nukes. If they did unleash them they lost out at the chance of getting to the world's growing supply of energy and wealth. Today, the pie is beginning to shrink. In other words, the conditions that kept the nukes in their silos is totally reversed from what it was during the Cold War.
    It's impossible to overstate what a sea change this represents. It's like describing the difference between people elbowing each other to get the best seats at the fossil fuel fiesta buffet table and people fighting to the death in the back alley for the leftovers and scraps. Back in 1960 the U.S. might have attempted to elbow Russia (or vice versa) in hopes of getting first dibs on some nice fat deposit of light sweet crude somewhere in the Middle East or South China Sea. Today, by stark contrast, they two nations are getting ready to figiht to the death over the heavy sour crude leftovers in the back alleys of the industrial age like Uzbekistan.
    So what can you do if this cluster**** becomes a nuclear cluster****? Well, I'm not too sure althought he idea that we all automatically die is (unfortunately) a myth. The bad news is that unless you're in an immediate blast zone you'll probably live through it. There is a free book online that you might want to check out on what you can do to prepare if or when this goes nuclear: Nuclear War Survival Skills. I have a copy of the actual print edition but I'll be honest and tell you I haven't had the stomach to study it in any more of a cursury fashion even though I really should as my current location is likely to survive any initial attacks.
    In semi-related news, a recent article by Ronald C. Cook makes it clear the financial elite now believe the U.S. economy is going to crash hard and crash soon. Not surprisingly, as the article explains, the Bush family is poised to profit from the crash via their relationships with the shadowy Carlyle Group.
    Of course this begs the question: "If Cheney is considering initiating a nuclear attack, why is the Bush family just sitting back and making money? Shouldn't they be preparing to 'bug out' to some fortress in the Southern hemisphere?" Well that's exactly it looks like they're doing! Check out the following article:

    <DIR>Bush's Paraguay Land Grab

    </DIR>Like I said: I know, it's crazy but it's true!
    As far as preparing for this, all I can say is cover your ass as best you can. If you come up with any particularly novel ideas feel free to send them my way cause Lord knows I'm trying to cover mine too.
  2. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Man I spent half my childhood worrying about nuclear war...... here we go again.
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    We don't need no steenkeeng Caspian oil. Just keep drilling for natural gas in downtown Dallas.
  4. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    We are the largest energy glutton on the planet. When the rest of the world, especially the nuclear powers like Russia and China, sees oil supplies starting to dry up how long do you think they will stand by and watch us waste it?
    The most sensible thing to do is to cripple the U.S. with a sneak attack and then move to secure the oil for themselves.
  5. AlterEgo

    AlterEgo Monkey+++

    Minuteman, boy did you take me off into a 'rabbit hole'. Thanks just what I needed another forum.

  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    You cannot have too much knowledge. And I love the avatar AE!

    I have believed for many years that we would suffer a surprise nuclear (limited, probably) attack. There are a good number of reasons to believe this. Peak Oil and resource wars only adds to the evidence. There have been many Soviet and Russian defectors over the years who have warned of secret plans to pacify the west into a false sense of security then launch a crippling attack.

    And another facet is this, and I know that this is not everyones cup of tea and not everyone accepts it as "evidence" but I will share it with you anyway. If it is not your kind of evidence then you can read it and go "hmmm" and go on, but hear me out here first.

    I have been a student of theology for over 20 years now, in particular the sudy of eschatology (biblical prophecy). Now I won't debate the merits of prophecy but suffice to say that if Fox news did a story about an ancient manusript that was 2/3 prophecy when written, and it can be determined that nearly 90% of it has come to pass, then people the world over would be running to the local Barnes and Noble to get a copy of it. But when they hear it is the Bible they lose interest.

    There is little debate that the prophecies of this book describe in remarkable detail a future nuclear attack. It describes peoples tongues melting in their mouths, their eyes and flesh burning off of their bodies before they hit the ground.

    There is a widespread movement among theologians that is gaining in poularity and acceptance daily. And let me preface by saying that it has been hijacked by some racist radicals who pervert the teaching and twist it to fit their particular warped views. But it basically says that the European peoples are the direct descendants of the ancient people of scripture called the Isrealites.

    This belief is not based on twisted verses of scripture but more on scientific evidences. Archeology, linquistics, anthapology, etc. But just for a minute put aside skepticism and accept this premise.

    So, if you accept that the European peoples are the Isrealites of the Bible, and you accept that scripture has proven itself to be an unerring record of future events, then read what this book has to say about those Isrealite peoples in the days to come.

    Ezekial 38 and 39 describes a sneak attack launched upon these people by nations that all bilical scholars have indentified as Russia and a conglomeration of arab nations.

    Now if the United States and Britain are the Isrealite people and this enemy "from the North" launches a sneak attack it all fits perfectly into what these defectors have been warning about, and what we now know that peak oil could precipitate.

    The bible describes this attack as particularly crippling and devastating. The Isrealite peoples eventualy prevail through devine intervention. The death and destruction is so great that it takes 7 months to bury the dead.

    Just something to consider. Like I said go hmmm and go on your way but if you are a student of scripture or believe in it, then a sneak attack on the United States and subsequent invasion from the North will fit into prophecy like a hand in a glove. No in depth interpretation needed. Just literal fulfillment of the word.

    I personaly believe that it will happen. The stage is being set, the places set. And news just this week that we are fueding with Russia over the oil reserves in the bering straits and in the far northern seas.

    Something to keep an eye on.
  7. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    A couple of articles related to this discussion.

    G7 Play Thermonuclear Chess with Putin
    by F. William Engdahl
    Global Research, June 18, 2007

    The most significant outcome of the recent G8 Summit at Heiligendamm was not Chancellor Merkel’s "victory" on the contentious issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It was the shrewd chess play by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on the US Missile Defense strategy for Europe.
    Putin outplayed his US counterpart Bush as he laid on the table a new proposal to deal with Washington’s ostensible argument why it must build its ballistic missile defense system in Poland, the Czech Republic and perhaps also Ukraine and Bulgaria. The proposal was as simple as it was devastating for the US argument in favor of Czech and Polish ABM sites.
    At a joint press conference following their private talks, Putin declared, "We have our own ideas. I outlined them in detail. The first proposal involves the joint use of the Gabala radar station that Russia leases from Azerbaijan. I spoke with the President of Azerbaijan about this just yesterday. Our present agreement with Azerbaijan would allow us to do this and the President of Azerbaijan stressed that he would be happy if his country could contribute to ensuring global security in this way.
    "We can do this automatically," Putin added, "and in this case the system we established would include all of Europe without exception, rather than simply one part of the continent. This would completely eliminate the possibility of missiles falling on European countries because they would fall either into the sea or into the ocean. It would eliminate the need -- or, more accurately -- allow us to refrain from changing our position and retargeting our missiles..."
    US replies
    After this press conference Bush’s spokesman announced that he had taken ill. More likely Mr Bush had to get briefed and fast how to respond to the unexpected Russian offer. Condi Rice even admitted they were caught off guard. The Russian President called their bluff before the world press.
    The response didn’t take long. On June 15 General Henry Obering, head of the US Missile Defense Agency declared the Russian proposal wouldn’t help against the "Iran threat" and installing a US radar system in the Czech Republic and a missile base (sic) in Poland was the "best possible decision given studies of possible flight trajectories of long-range ballistic missiles the Islamic Republic was working on…"
    A day earlier at a NATO defense ministers’ meet, US Defense Secretary Gates stated the US would go ahead with its plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe whether or not any agreement is reached on an alternative Russian proposal.
    In brief, Washington’s response has been a parody of Admiral Farragut’s famous cry: "Damn the missiles; full speed ahead!"
    The US made a formal request in January to place a radar base in a military area near Prague, and interceptor missiles in neighbouring Poland as part of a US-controlled missile defense shield. In doing so, Washington, we should recall, claimed rogue missile attacks from Iran or North Korea as justification.
    The world could well look back to Heiligendamm as the last chance the major powers had to avoid thermonuclear destruction. Sound overly dramatic? The day after he made his proposal to Mr Bush, Putin called an open press conference with all invited G8 media.
    Why Putin is right
    A western reader of mainline press would conclude that Russia has unilaterally reverted to its Cold War stance and threatens world peace. The reality is a little different. As Putin told the G8 press in comments almost completely blocked out in western media, "if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability."
    In other words, missile "defense" is not defensive at all. It is offensive. If one of two nuclear opponents has nuclear strike ability and even a modest shield against retaliation from the other, he has what NATO strategists have dreamed of since the mid-1950’s: Nuclear Primacy. You can simply dictate terms of surrender to the other. The first nation with a nuclear missile shield would de facto have ‘first strike ability.’ Quite correctly, Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, Director of the US Air Force missile defense program, recently called missile defense, "the missing link to a First Strike."
    We can dismiss the argument about Iran missiles. The Azeri offer of Putin for US missile shield would stand on the Iran border. The current US plans for Europe call to mind the September 2000 report which in addition to calling for regime change in Iraq also demanded upgraded priority to missile defense as a tool to "project US power." That report, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses,’ by the hawkish Project for the New American Century, where Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were members, declared, ‘The United States must develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for US power projection around the world.’ (author’s emphasis).
    In his remarks at Heiligendamm, Putin reminded the press it was not Russia but the USA which started the new confrontation, when it unilaterally abrogated the US-Russian Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty in December 2001. Then Washington has supported color revolutions and pro-NATO regime changes on Russia’s borders. It has brought into NATO Poland, Latvia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia, formerly of Yugoslavia. NATO candidates include the Georgia, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia. Ukraine’s President, Victor Yushchenko, has tried to bring Ukraine into NATO. This is a clear message to Moscow, not surprisingly, one they don’t seem to welcome with open arms.
    Putin noted with more than a little irony, "we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems."
    Russia will now likely leave the 1990 treaty on conventional forces in Europe to reorganize its military posture. It will retarget its missiles at EU and US targets. On June 14 Moscow announced successful tests of a new type of ballistic missile that will reportedly penetrate any US missile defense. The new Cold War is underway. How that affects EU-Russian relations, including in oil and gas, will be the political theme of the rest of this decade.

    And this one, even more ominous;

    Is Bush Planning to Nuke Iran? If So, Say Goodbye to Democratic Outcomes
    The Reign of the Tyrants is at Hand

    <DIR>"It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."
    General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Press Club, February 17, 2006.

    "They will be held accountable for the decisions they make. So they should in fact not obey the illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction."
    General Peter Pace, CNN With Wolf Blitzer, April 6, 2003

    The surprise decision by the Bush regime to replace General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been explained as a necessary step to avoid contentious confirmation hearings in the US Senate. Gen. Pace's reappointment would have to be confirmed, and as the general has served as vice chairman and chairman of the Joint Chiefs for the past 6 years, the Republicans feared that hearings would give war critics an opportunity to focus, in Defense Secretary Gates words, "on the past, rather than the future."
    This is a plausible explanation. Whether one takes it on face value depends on how much trust one still has in a regime that has consistently lied about everything for six years.
    General Pace himself says he was forced out when he refused to "take the issue off the table" by voluntarily retiring. Pace himself was sufficiently disturbed by his removal to strain his relations with the powers that be by not going quietly.
    The Wall Street Journal editorial page interpreted Pace's removal as indication that "the man running the Pentagon is Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. For that matter, is George W. Bush still President?"
    The Wall Street Journal editorial writers' attempt to portray Pace's departure as evidence of a weak and appeasing administration does not ring true. An administration that escalates the war in Iraq in the face of public opposition and pushes ahead with its plan to attack Iran is not an appeasing administration. Whether it is the war or Attorney General Gonzales or the immigration bill or anything else, President Bush and his Republican stalwarts have told Congress and the American people that they don't care what Congress and the public think. Bush's signing statements make it clear that he doesn't even care about the laws that Congress writes.
    A president audacious enough to continue an unpopular and pointless war in the face of public opinion and a lost election is a president who is not too frightened to reappoint a general. Why does Bush run from General Pace when he fervently supports embattled Attorney General Gonzales? What troops does Bush support? He supports his toadies.
    There are, of course, other explanations for General Pace's departure. The most disturbing of these explanations can be found in General Pace's two statements at the beginning of this article.
    In the first statement General Pace says that every member of the US military has the absolute responsibility to disobey illegal and immoral orders. In the second statement, General Pace says that an order to use weapons of mass destruction is an illegal and immoral order.
    The context of General Pace's second statement above (actually, the first statement in historical time) is his response to Blitzer's question whether the invading US troops could be attacked with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Pace's answer does not restrict illegal and immoral only to Iraqi use of WMD. It is a general statement. It applies to their use period.
    Despite the illegality and immorality of first-use of nuclear weapons, the Bush Pentagon rewrote US war doctrine to permit their use regardless of their illegality and immorality. For a regime that not only believes that might is right but also that they have the might, law is what the regime says.
    The revised war doctrine permits US first strike use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. We need to ask ourselves why the Bush administration would blacken America's reputation and rekindle the nuclear arms race unless the administration had plans to apply its new war doctrine.
    Senator Joseph Lieberman, a number of neoconservatives, prominent Jewish leaders such as Norman Podhoretz, and members of the Israeli government have called for a US attack on Iran. Most Republican presidential candidates have said that they would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
    Allegedly, the US Department of State is pursuing diplomacy with Iran, not war, but Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns gives the lie to that claim. On June 12 Burns claimed that Iran was not only arming insurgents in Iraq but also the Taliban in Afghanistan. Burns' claims are, to put it mildly, controversial in the US intelligence community, and they are denied not only by Iran but also by our puppet government in Afghanistan. On June 14, Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told the Associated Press that Burns' claim has no credibility.
    But, of course, none of the administration's propagandistic claims that set the stage for the invasion of Iraq had any credibility either, and the lack of credibility did not prevent the claims from deceiving the Congress and the American people. As the US media now function as the administration's Ministry of Propaganda, the Bush regime believes that it can stampede Americans with lies into another war.
    The Bush regime has concluded that a conventional attack on Iran would do no more than stir up a hornet's nest and release retaliatory actions that the US could not manage. The Bush regime is convinced that only nuclear weapons can bring the mullahs to heel.
    The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts General Pace's departure in a different light. How can President Bush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order is "illegal and immoral" and that everyone in the military has an "absolute responsibility" to disobey it?
    An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.
    Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Iran, thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" (NSPD-51 AND HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May 9. Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush declares a national emergency, he can take over all functions of government at every level, as well as private organizations and businesses, and remain in total control until he declares the emergency to be over.
    Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power?
    What is the necessity of such a sweeping directive subject to no check or ratification?
    What catastrophic emergency short of a massive attack on the US with nuclear ICBMs can possibly justify such a directive?
    There is no obvious answer to the question. The federal government's inability to respond to Hurricane Katrina is hard evidence that centralizing power in one office is not the way to deal with catastrophes.
    A speculative answer is that, with appropriate propaganda, the directive could be triggered by a US nuclear attack on Iran. The use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A US nuclear attack would send Russian and Chinese ICBMs into high alert. False flag operations could be staged in the US. The US media would hype such developments to the hilt, portraying danger everywhere. Fear of the regime's new detention centers would silence most voices of protest as the regime declares its "national emergency."
    This might sound like a far-out fiction novel, but it is a scenario that would explain the Bush regime's lack concern that the shrinking Republican vote that foretells a massive Republican wipeout in the 2008 election. In a declared national emergency, there would be no election.
    As implausible as this might sound to people who trust the government, be aware that despite his rhetoric, Bush has no respect for democracy. His neoconservative advisors have all been taught that it is their duty to circumvent democracy, as democracy does not produce the right decisions. Neoconservatives believe in rule by elites, and they regard themselves as the elite. The Bush regime decided that Americans would not agree to an invasion of Iraq unless they were deceived and tricked into it, and so we were.
    Indeed, democracy is out of favor throughout the Western world. In the UK and Europe, peoples are being forced, despite their expressed opposition, into an EU identity that they reject. British PM Tony Blair and his European counterparts have decided on their own that the people do not know best and that the people will be ignored. As former French PM Valery Giscard d'Estaing told the French newspaper, Le Monde,"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."Giscard d'Estaing is referring to the resurrection of the rejected EU constitution camouflaged as a treaty. Giscard d'Estaing acknowledges that 450 million Europeans are being hoodwinked. Why should Americans be surprised that they have been and are being hoodwinked?
    Americans might have more awareness of their peril if they realized that their leaders no longer believe in democratic outcomes.

    Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of [URL=" Good Intentions.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/U]He can be reached at:
  8. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

  9. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

  10. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    That's a really good link EL, thanks. I would like to add a couple of footnotes tho.

    Can you not read that and clearly envision a nuclear exchange and horrific battle?

    Whenever the Bible speaks of a "Nation" it is refering to a people, not necessarily a geographic area. Thus the common , I believe, error of trying to place all of these events in the "nation" of Isreal located now in Palestine. Thus the footnote identifying the "Sea" mentioned as the Sea of Gallilee.

    Also a note on the names mentioned. Meshech and Tubal have been identified by scholars as ancient city states located in modern day Russia. Meshech may actualy be the ancient name of modern day Moscow.

    The alliance is made up of Persia (Iran), Cush ( Ethiopia, Sudan and possibly Egypt). And puzzling is the inclusion of Gomer, which scholars indentify as modern Germany.

    The nations alarmed by the attack are indentified as "Sheba" which remains a mystery, but Dedan is identified as being a region of Europe. Tarshish has been identified as the British Isles, a sea going people whose merchants it is known supplied tin to the bronze age kingdoms.

    Military planners have said that any attack by Russia would likely involve an invasion across the bering straits and down into the continental US from the North.

    And I would suspect also from the South also, Ala a "Red Dawn" type of scenario. John Milius is said to have used actual declasified military invasion scenarios as a basis for RD.
  11. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    somewhere following peak oil news I heard of a russian council of geologists trying to prove the russian land mass continues into thearctic so they can lay claim to drilling rightsin international courts.What if they reclaim Alaska as rightfully theirs?????
  12. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    The Kremlin's Arctic claim involves a 463,222-square-mile triangular swath of ocean that stretches from the North Pole to waters above east Siberia and Russia's Chukotka Peninsula. That section of the Arctic lies beyond Russia's economic jurisdiction, which is defined by the Law of the Sea Treaty as all waters within 200 miles of a country's coastline.

    But if Russia can geologically prove that its continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit, it can claim economic rights over that extension.

    An international commission that reviews such applications rejected Russia's initial claim, but Opekunov and a team of 70 scientists at the Russian institute are crafting a second bid. Thirty of those scientists are currently sailing on an icebreaker near the Arctic's Lomonosov Ridge, conducting seismic tests to help determine the geology of the ocean floor, Opekunov said.

    Of the five countries that surround the Arctic - Russia, Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), Canada and the U.S., only the U.S. has yet to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Canada and Denmark are working together on a counter claim arguing that the Arctic's Lomonosov Ridge belongs not to the Siberian continental shelf but to the Canadian-Greenland shelf.

    John Norton Moore, who served as a U.S. ambassador to Law of the Sea negotiations during the Nixon and Ford administrations, says the U.S. risks being left on the sidelines if it doesn't ratify the treaty. Ratification is needed if the U.S. wants the right to claim its own extension of the continental shelf emanating from the Alaskan coastline, and to have a say on the commission that reviews economic jurisdiction claims such as Russia's.

    "Russia is the first nation in the world to submit a claim relative to those substantial Arctic resources," said Moore, "and the U.S. is harmed by not having a member on that commission."

    What country, other than the two we share a border with, is the closest to the United States? Russia, some 70 miles IIRC, with Cuba being the next at 90 miles.
  13. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    <TABLE id=ViewArticleTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>First Strike against Russia: The Real Danger behind US ABM Deployment in Eastern Europe

    by Chimes of Freedom

    </TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>Global Research, June 11, 2007
    </TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>Chimes of Freedom
    </TD></TR><TR><TD noWrap align=left colSpan=2>
    </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left colSpan=2>
    "These European ABMs are an adjunct to the longstanding US policy of nuclear first strike against Russia, ..." (Professor Francis Boyle, Global Research, June 2007)
    Recent disinformation by the western media about Russia starting a new Cold War not only masks the threat of a US Anti-Ballistic Missile shield deployment but, as always, projects the blame on the victim, Russia.

    The US missile shield must be understood in the context of its geo-strategic nuclear deployment. Far from being defensive, its ultimate purpose is to obtain such an unassailable advantage over any other nuclear power as to be able to threaten any would-be opponent with nuclear extinction if it were not to comply with the wishes of the US.

    This new form of nuclear strategy has been called 'compellence'. Remember the word because you won't hear it mentioned by the western MSM which has already tried to distract us from the real dangers behind the deployment of the US missile shield with matters which bear no relevance such as the Litvinenko affair and the inevitable Russian response to retaliate with its own missiles.

    By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. So Bush Jr. needs ABMs to take care of what remains. And in any event what really matters here is the perception. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."

    In other words, with an apparent first strike capability, the USG can compel Russia to do its bidding during a crisis. The classic case in point here was the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviet Union knew the USG could strike first and get away with it. Hence they capitulated.

    This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence."

    The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. Easier to rule the world that way. Henceforth the USG will be able to compel even nuclear-armed adversaries to do its bidding in a crisis or otherwise.

    Deterrence strategy was abandoned over twenty years ago when the US upped the ante in its Arms Race by introducing new, microchip-controlled nuclear weapons, including the medium-range Cruise missile, and replacing the idea of deterrence with 'pre-emption' or first strike. It was no longer necessary to wait for the other side to attack first. Instead, you attack first if you think the other side is planning to attack you.

    Any sane person can see the danger in a strategy that inevitably leads to paranoia. But when you add to it the fact that everything is handled, not by humans, but by computers a War Games doomsday scenario is what we are faced with.

    What the US is now dumping is no longer deterrence. That was dumped over 20 years ago. What it's doing is to develop the second stage of First Strike by introducing an element, compellence, which will effectively coerce all its competitors, through terror, to do its bidding.

    It was concerning this that Vladimir Putin warned the world at the Munich Conference last February.

    " I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security," he said.
    "In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space."

    And, in the context of the expansion of NATO into the old Warsaw Pact countries: "I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust."

    "And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?"

    Remember, it is in (former) Czechoslovakia and Poland where the US now intends to install its ABM radar systems. The pattern of aggressive closing in on the USSR is clear for all to see. Finally, in that speech, Putin warned the US that if it were to go ahead with a new arms race, including ABM deployment, Russia would respond asymetrically.

    As the US and NATO have chosen to ignore Putin's warnings and go ahead they have now drawn the inevitable response of retaliation.

    It is this background to the current new aggression of the USA and NATO that the western media hides by trying to distract attention with events which have no bearing on the real dangers of US geo-strategic nuclear deployment.

    In the 'eighties, it was the late radical historian, Edward Thompson, and the European Nuclear Disarmament movement that campaigned against US First Strike strategy and who alerted the world to its danger. Now there is no Edward Thompson or an END. So it is up to the likes of we humble bloggers to demystify the MSM spin and let the truth be known.

    </TD></TR><TR><TD class=bigArticleText vAlign=center>
    Global Research Articles by Chimes of Freedom</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  14. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    The radar in prague would give us an early warning being so close and tied into our system of course our satellites can pick up the launch real time, so I'm not so sure what advantage this presents.We should be thankful to the emperor or wanting to defend us in this manner.[nothome]
    Oh if they invade from the north I've got plenty of floor space in the finished basement up here in wisconsin..
    dress warm...bring a hat and gloves...[gun][gun]
  15. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member


    Thanks for the information. I'm spending way too much time reading this stuff at work, but then again, as long as I get my job done my doesn't much care what I do [winkthumb]
  16. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    The Coming Conflict in the Arctic
    Russia and US to Square Off Over Arctic Energy Reserves
    by Vladimir Frolov
    Global Research, July 17, 2007

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush spent most of their time at the "lobster summit" at Kennebunkport, Maine, discussing how to prevent the growing tensions between their two countries from getting out of hand.

    The media and international affairs experts have been portraying missile defense in Europe and the final status of Kosovo as the two most contentious issues between Russia and the United States, with mutual recriminations over "democracy standards" providing the background for the much anticipated onset of a new Cold War. But while this may well be true for today, the stage has been quietly set for a much more serious confrontation in the non-too-distant future between Russia and the United States – along with Canada, Norway and Denmark.

    Russia has recently laid claim to a vast 1,191,000 sq km (460,800 sq miles) chunk of the ice-covered Arctic seabed. The claim is not really about territory, but rather about the huge hydrocarbon reserves that are hidden on the seabed under the Arctic ice cap. These newly discovered energy reserves will play a crucial role in the global energy balance as the existing reserves of oil and gas are depleted over the next 20 years.
    Russia has the world's largest gas reserves and is the second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia, but its oil and gas production is slated to decline after 2010 as currently operational reserves dwindle. Russia’s Natural Resources Ministry estimates that the country’s existing oil reserves will be depleted by 2030.

    The 2005 BP World Energy Survey projects that U.S. oil reserves will last another 10 years if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not opened for oil exploration, Norway’s reserves are good for about seven years and British North Sea reserves will last no more than five years – which is why the Arctic reserves, which are still largely unexplored, will be of such crucial importance to the world’s energy future. Scientists estimate that the territory contains more than 10 billion tons of gas and oil deposits. The shelf is about 200 meters (650 feet) deep and the challenges of extracting oil and gas there appear to be surmountable, particularly if the oil prices stay where they are now – over $70 a barrel.

    The Kremlin wants to secure Russia's long-term dominance over global energy markets. To ensure this, Russia needs to find new sources of fuel and the Arctic seems like the only place left to go. But there is a problem: International law does not recognize Russia’s right to the entire Arctic seabed north of the Russian coastline.

    The 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a 12 mile zone for territorial waters and a larger 200 mile economic zone in which a country has exclusive drilling rights for hydrocarbon and other resources.

    Russia claims that the entire swath of Arctic seabed in the triangle that ends at the North Pole belongs to Russia, but the United Nations Committee that administers the Law of the Sea Convention has so far refused to recognize Russia’s claim to the entire Arctic seabed.

    In order to legally claim that Russia’s economic zone in the Arctic extends far beyond the 200 mile zone, it is necessary to present viable scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean’s sea shelf to the north of Russian shores is a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the 200 mile zone. It was rejected.

    Now Russian scientists assert there is new evidence that Russia’s northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via an underwater shelf. Last week a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage to the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote eastern Arctic Ocean. They claimed the ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil- and gas-rich triangle.

    The latest findings are likely to prompt Russia to lodge another bid at the UN to secure its rights over the Arctic sea shelf. If no other power challenges Russia’s claim, it will likely go through unchallenged.

    But Washington seems to have a different view and is seeking to block the anticipated Russian bid. On May 16, 2007, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made a statement encouraging the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, as the Bush Administration wants. The Reagan administration negotiated the Convention, but the Senate refused to ratify it for fear that it would unduly limit the U.S. freedom of action on the high seas.

    Lugar used the following justification in his plea for the United States to ratify the convention: "Russia has used its rights under the convention to claim large parts of the Arctic Ocean in the hope of claiming potential oil and gas deposits that might become available as the polar ice cap recedes due to global warming. If the United States did not ratify the convention, Russia would be able to press its claims without the United States at the negotiating table. This would be directly damaging to U.S. national interests." President Bush urged the Senate to ratify the convention during its current session, which ends in 2008.

    The United States has been jealous of Russia’s attempts to project its dominance in the energy sector and has sought to limit opportunities for Russia to control export routes and energy deposits outside Russia’s territory. But the Arctic shelf is something that Russia has traditionally regarded as its own. For decades, international powers have pressed no claims to Russia’s Arctic sector for obvious reasons of remoteness and inhospitability, but no longer.

    Now, as the world’s major economic powers brace for the battle for the last barrel of oil, it is not surprising that the United States would seek to intrude on Russia’s home turf. It is obvious that Moscow would try to resist this U.S. intrusion and would view any U.S. efforts to block Russia’s claim to its Arctic sector as unfriendly and overtly provocative. Furthermore, such a policy would actually help the Kremlin justify its hardline position. It would certainly prove right Moscow’s assertion that U.S. policy towards Russia is really driven by the desire to get guaranteed and privileged access to Russia’s energy resources.

    It promises to be a tough fight.
  17. BAT1

    BAT1 Cowboys know no fear

    The Russians as you know like Bioweapons better [ neutron bombs, viruses etc.] Why mess up the landscape with radiation? Several dose of potassiun iaddate will be handy for the survival kit.
  18. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is from LATOC website. It is a comprehensive collection of articles on this subject. There is just too much material to post here. So here is the link to that site;[/FONT]

    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The last global oil war (World War II) ended in 1945 with a nuclear attack in Asia. That was at a time when the world had only two nuclear weapons. Today there are 20,000 devices, many of which are under the control of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]individuals who honestly think they can "win" a first strike nuclear war and are spending billions of dollars to do just that.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, yes, I know what some of you are thinking. "Oh we've been hearing this for 50 years." There is a big difference between the nuclear threat of yester-year and the the threat of today. During the cold war, all nuclear-armed countries were getting wealthier due to the drawdown of the world's fossil fuel reserves. Thus, they all had a lot of motivation [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]not[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] to upset the global apple cart. With per-capita energy production about to plunge off of a cliff that situation is reversing itself.[/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Below you will find a series of articles, the majority of which are from mainstream sources, about the prepartions for nuclear war being made at the highest levels of the world's military-government establishment. Following those, you'll find links to documentaries, films, and historical articles of interest."
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

  19. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    This really isn't TFHL material...
  20. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Agreed. Should be front page, happening now news. This on Yahoo just today;

    CHEBARKUL TESTING RANGE, Russia - President Vladimir Putin placed strategic bombers back on long-range patrol for the first time since the Soviet breakup, sending a tough message to the United States on Friday hours after a major Russian military exercise with China.

    Putin reviewed the first Russian-Chinese joint exercise on Russian soil before announcing that 20 strategic bombers had been sent far over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans — showing off Moscow's muscular new posture and its growing military ties with Beijing.

    "Starting today, such tours of duty will be conducted regularly and on the strategic scale," Putin said. "Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life."

    Putin said halting long-range bombers after the Soviet collapse had hurt Russia's security because other nations — an oblique reference to the United States — had continued such missions.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary