| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?4pi6IC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuwrc6KsKowqgqOsK3LiAg4pmlIFVuY2xlIFdhbGx5IFJ1bGV6ICEgRlJJQ0sgeWVhaCAhIOKZoy4uLkhPT1JPTyAh4pmm4pmg4peY4peL4peZ4pmC4pmA4pmq4pmr4pi84pa6LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty4g4pml4pi6wqnCruKEog==?=" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2007 09:11:59 PM |
| Object: |
PENTAGON CONTEMPLATING FUTURISTIC WAR PLANS |
http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/233978/=
cs/1/
NB: AN OFFICIAL UNCLE WALLY DISCLAIMER: The following article comes
from the website listed below & was written by Jack A Smith. Jack A
Smith is former editor of the (US) Guardian Newsweekly and editor of
the Hudson Valley (New York) Activist Newsletter.
Your dearest old lovable cuddly Uncle Wally does not necessarily
endorse the contents or viewpoints expressed in the following
article.....HOOROO !!
=E2=98=BA=E2=99=80=E2=99=A6=E2=99=A3=E2=99=A0=E2=80=A2=E2=97=98=E2=97=8B=E2=
=97=99=E2=99=82=E2=99=80=E2=99=AA=E2=99=AB=E2=98=BC=E2=96=BA=E2=97=84=E2=86=
=95=E2=80=BC=C2=B6=C2=A7=E2=96=AC=E2=86=A8=E2=86=91=E2=86=93=E2=86=92=E2=86=
=90=E2=88=9F=E2=86=94
http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/233978/=
cs/1/
Pentagon contemplating futuristic war plans
Malaysia Sun
Tuesday 13th March, 2007
(Jack A Smith )
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in
defense of our great nation." - President George W Bush in Bob
Woodward's book Plan of Attack.
While most Americans are concentrating on extricating the US
government from the debacle in Iraq, and most peace activists are
simultaneously concerned that the Bush administration will launch a
war against Iran, the leaders of the Pentagon are planning how to win
wars 10, 20, and 50 years from now.
Washington is preparing for every contingency, from rooting out a
handful of suspected terrorists halfway around the world to possible
wars with Russia and China.
The Defense Department's drawing boards are groaning under the weight
of blueprints for sustaining total military dominance of land, sea,
air and outer space throughout this century. The costs of supporting
the US government's martial propensities will be astronomical in terms
of the social programs and benefits denied American working people,
not to mention the consequences of living in a state of permanent
warfare.
The recent decision to escalate the Iraq war with a "surge" of 21,500
more troops, the plan to increase the armed forces by another 92,000
troops, and President George W Bush's request for $716 billion to meet
the Pentagon's warmaking needs in fiscal year 2008 are a harbinger of
what's coming next - new technologies for fighting future wars on the
ground, improvements in the nuclear stockpile and delivery systems,
and the militarization of outer space, among other military goals.
The Pentagon's futuristic war plans and the 2008 war budget leave no
doubt that the US has discarded president George Washington's warning
in 1796 to avoid "overgrown military establishments", or president
Dwight D Eisenhower's advice in 1961 to "guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex".
The 2008 war budget not only exceeds the combined military budgets of
the rest of the world's nations, but means the cost of Bush's "war on
terrorism" (including Iraq and Afghanistan) amounts to more in
inflation-adjusted dollars than the cost of the Korean or Vietnam
wars.
Washington's ever-expanding forces of war, combined with more than 750
major military bases around the world to secure America's economic and
political empire, mean that the United States, despite the absence of
helmeted brutes in hobnailed boots parading on cobblestone streets, is
a militaristic society that is a danger to world peace.
"Today, as never before in their history," writes Andrew J Bacevich in
his stunning book The New American Militarism, "Americans are
enthralled with military power. The global supremacy that the US
presently enjoys, and is bent on perpetuating, has become central to
our national identify. Americans in our own time have fallen prey to
militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a
tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national
greatness, and have come to define the nation's strength and well-
being in terms of military preparedness and military action."
Unless militarism is curtailed, Chalmers Johnson predicts in The
Sorrows of Empire, four things will happen: "First, there will be a
perpetual state of war, leading to more terrorism against Americans
wherever they may be. Second, there will be a loss of democracy and
constitutional rights. Third, an already well-shredded principle of
truthfulness will increasingly be replaced by a system of propaganda,
disinformation, and glorification of war, power and the military
legions. Lastly, there will be [national] bankruptcy."
Let's look at some of those Pentagon blueprints for the next war, and
the next, and the next, focusing first on America's high-tech plans
for ground wars (Future Combat Systems), then nuclear wars (Complex
2030), and, following directly, space wars (the new National Space
Policy).
Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the Pentagon's name for an effort to
"build an entirely new army, reconfigured to perform the global
policing mission", according to the Office of Management and Budget.
This is a system of modern warfighting based on dominating any
possible adversary through the use of nearly 50 new technologies. The
objective is to improve strategic agility, increase battlefield
lethality, and kill more of the "enemy" while reducing American
casualties even further.
The New York Times has described FCS as "a seamless web of 18
different sets of networked weapons and military robots. The program
is at the heart of [a Defense Department] plan to transform the army
into a faster, lighter force in which stripped-down tanks could be put
on a transport plane and flown into battle, and information systems
could protect soldiers of the future as heavy armor has protected them
in the past. Combat soldiers, weapons and robots are to be linked by a
$25 billion web [known as] Joint Tactical Radio Systems. The network
would transmit the battlefield information intended to protect
soldiers."
The February 2007 issue of Harper's magazine contains a revealing
article on FCS titled "The coming robot army" by Steve Featherstone,
who writes:
"The practice of warfare has changed dramatically in the past 60
years. Since Vietnam, the American military machine has been governed
by two parallel and complementary trends: an aversion to casualties
and a heavy reliance on technology. The Gulf War reinforced the belief
that technology can replace human soldiers on the battlefield and the
Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia made this belief an article of
faith. Today, any new weapon worth its procurement contract is
customarily referred to as a "force multiplier", which can be
translated as doing more damage with fewer people. Weaponized robots
are the ultimate force multiplier, and every branch of the military
has increased spending on new unmanned systems."
At $145 billion [not including the cost of the radio network mentioned
above], the army's Future Combat Systems is the costliest weapons
program in history, and in some ways the most visionary as well. The
individual soldier is still central to the FCS concept, but he has
been reconfigured as a sort of plug-and-play warrior, a node in what
is envisioned as a sprawling network of robots, manned [and unmanned]
vehicles, ground sensors, satellites, and command centers. In theory,
each node will exchange real-time information with the network,
allowing the entire system to accommodate sudden changes in the
"battle space". The fog of war would become a relic of the past, like
the musket, swept away by crystalline streams of encrypted data. The
enemy would not be killed so much as deleted.
According to a report last June by the congressional Committee on
Appropriations, the cost of FCS could reach an extraordinary $200
billion to become fully operational by the projected date of 2025.
Even then, all this money will be able to equip only 15 out of 70
combat brigade teams with the full array of FCS technology. The
original cost was supposed to be $100 billion, and some sources are
predicting the price may go up to $300 billion before its finished.
The US Navy is modernizing, as well. According to the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), "The navy in 2006 introduced a new ship force
structure plan that calls for achieving and maintaining a 313-ship
fleet," including another three aircraft carriers to join the existing
dozen already in service.
US Air Force modernization includes obtaining 60 F-22A Raptors (out of
183 on order, each costing more than $100 million (but $300 million
each when research and development expenses are added to production
costs) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which the CRS describes as the
largest aviation program in terms of estimated cost ($276 billion) and
numbers (2,458 aircraft). In addition, contracts are out for building
180 C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifters, a sure sign the Pentagon
anticipates quickly flying a great deal of military tonnage to distant
countries.
According to Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
the existing nuclear powers - primarily the US and Russia - are
obligated to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the arms race at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under
strict and effective international control".
Washington and Moscow did in fact reduce the number of nuclear
warheads in the 15 years since the end of the Cold War, but there have
been absolutely no steps toward general and complete nuclear
disarmament - the only way to end nuclear proliferation and to prevent
nuclear war. Russia (including when it was the USSR) affirms a
willingness to rid the world of nuclear weapons but insists that all
states, including the US, must be willing to do so as well before
Moscow destroys its stockpiles. Washington will not agree.
At this stage, the US has about 6,000 strategic warheads compared with
Russia's 5,000, down from the 1990 total of about 14,000 and 11,000
respectively. (A "strategic" nuclear weapon can produce thousands of
kilotons of explosive force. One kiloton equals 1,000 tons of TNT. The
largest ever tested was 50,000 kilotons in 1961. A "tactical" nuclear
weapon possesses the explosive power of a fraction of a kiloton. The
small 12-kiloton atomic bomb with which the United States decimated
Hiroshima in 1945 killed more than 150,000 people immediately or in
its aftermath.)
According to the terms of the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty (SORT), the US and Russia must reduce the number of their
deployed strategic warheads to 2,200 by 2012 when the treaty expires -
a size that can still destroy the entire population of our planet
many, many times over. The key word here is "deployed", meaning
mounted and ready to be fired in minutes. SORT does not call for the
remaining strategic warheads to be destroyed, which means the weapons
will be put in storage, along with thousands of tactical weapons. The
treaty does not cover tactical weapons.
The latest plan for increasing US nuclear power was made public on
October 20 under the title Complex 2030, the number standing for the
year of its supposed completion. The cost at minimum will be $150
billion, but it will end up with a much higher price tag. This
program, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, will "entail
upgrading the entire US nuclear-weapons complex while designing and
producing a series of new nuclear warheads".
These new weapons, produced through the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) Program, would ultimately replace the entire US nuclear arsenal.
Under Complex 2030, "the US nuclear weapons laboratories would return
to the Cold War cycle of nuclear weapon design, development, and
production. This initiative would risk a return to underground nuclear
testing and would undercut US efforts to limit the development of new
nuclear weapons by other countries."
The Bush administration's proposed new budget calls for spending $89
million in 2008 on research and development of the new warheads,
double the amount for fiscal 2007. Incidentally, the Pentagon's
existing stockpile of nuclear weapons is expected to remain viable for
another 50 years, but the new warheads evidently will be more
technically proficient.
The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Agency, which is in
charge of the warheads, claims Complex 2030 will not entail nuclear-
weapons testing, but this could change. The US signed the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, but it has not been
ratified by the Senate. Under the terms of the NPT, the US was
supposed to have ratified the treaty years ago.
War hawks in and around the Bush administration are worried about
reducing the strategic arsenal to 2,200 warheads at the ready, even
when enhanced by Complex 2030. A subcommittee of the Defense Science
Board, an important advisory group to the Defense Department, reported
in December that the new program does "not provide for a nuclear-
weapons enterprise capable of meeting the nation's future needs".
Wade Boese, writing in Arms Control Today (January-February 2007),
says the task force wants the reduction to be "reversible in case
relations sour with China or Russia". The Defense Science Board is
evidently contemplating World War III, and it is clearly not alone.
According to the authoritative magazine Foreign Affairs (March/April
2006), "Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United
States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will
probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-
range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.
"This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a
series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the
precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of
modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies
change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and
readiness of their forces, Russia and China - and the rest of the
world - will live in the shadow of US nuclear primacy for many years
to come."
To ensure its ability to deliver a knockout blow with a first strike,
the Bush administration is moving ahead with a so-called "defensive"
anti-missile system intended to destroy any possible retaliatory blow
from the few possible nuclear weapons that were not destroyed in the
initial US attack.
During the Cold War the US and USSR avoided a nuclear war through the
policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The nuclear equivalency
of the time meant that a first strike would not be able to destroy all
the other side's retaliatory strike force, assuring that any attack
would be met with a counterattack, killing hundreds of millions on
both sides - so there was no nuclear war. Now, with the US moving
swiftly toward first-strike supremacy and an anti-ballistic-missile
system under construction, a catastrophic nuclear exchange in the
decades ahead cannot be ruled out.
As an indication of the present world danger, the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists in January moved the hands of its Doomsday Clock two
minutes ahead to 11:55pm - five minutes to annihilation midnight.
Much to Russia's and the world's disappointment, the Bush
administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
in 2002 to develop an ABM system to eliminate the chance that a
nuclear-wounded "enemy" might be able to launch its few remaining
nuclear warheads toward the United States. In addition, despite pleas
to do so from Moscow, Washington has no intention of renewing - or
even discussing renewing - the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) when it expires in 2009.
According to an article about the end of START in the January Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists (online) by Pavel Podvig of the Center for
International Security and Cooperation, the US "plans to keep the
capability to maintain an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads for
decades to come".
There is not much hope that the current political climate will produce
proposals that could change the substance of nuclear-policy
discussions. Instead, we see the growing acceptance of the idea that
nuclear forces should be preserved (more or less) in their current
form, even if no one can clearly formulate missions for these forces.
At the very least, the START process has kept some pressure on the
United States and Russia (and indirectly on other countries) to think
about nuclear-arms reductions and has provided the framework for
implementing these reductions. Now that this process is ending, there
is nothing to replace it.
Not only Russia but other countries will strengthen or create their
own atomic strike force as a result of America's quest for nuclear
domination. For instance, the fear of a US nuclear attack was
certainly a motive for North Korea to develop a rudimentary nuclear
weapon. In this connection, Russia long ago agreed to a no-first-
strike pledge, but the US still refuses to follow suit, maintaining
that such a pledge would reduce its options. Washington even maintains
it has the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively against non-
nuclear states.
Both Russia and China are acutely aware that they are potential
targets of a US attack, not least because of their strenuous
objections to the concept of a unipolar world with Washington at its
epicenter. This was one of the reasons Russian President Vladimir
Putin delivered an exceptionally strong critique of US foreign-
military policy on February 10 during the Munich Conference on
Security Policy. Obviously exercising Russia's new sense of having
restored itself to great-power status in recent years, the Russian
leader declared:
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any
problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created
new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local
and regional conflicts have not diminished. Today we are witnessing an
almost uncontained hyper-use of force - military force - in
international relations, force that is plunging the world into an
abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have sufficient
strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these
conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles
of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of
fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One
state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in
every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and
educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes
this? Who is happy about this? And of course this is extremely
dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to
emphasize this - no one feels safe!
(Jack A Smith is former editor of the (US) Guardian Newsweekly and
editor of the Hudson Valley (New York) Activist Newsletter).
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war
Pentagon Report: Climate Change Will Bring Famine, War
Pentagon war game based on China threat to Taiwan
World War III **NEWS** Tuesday, July 1, 2003 -- SARS death toll continues to mount.......
World War III ***NEWS*** Tuesday, August 5, 2003....+
World War III **NEWS ** Friday, August 15, 2003....US fears Israel may strike Iran's nukes
World War III **NEWS** Sunday, August 31st, 2003 AD...+
World War III **NEWS** Thursday, October 30th, 2003 AD
| World War Three 2003 ***NEWS***25/11/3
There is no war, there are no dead Americans
Algerian Islamic rebels declare war on foreigners
Re: NOSTRADAMUS, THE ATHENS OLYMPIC GAMES 2004 & World War III
Gaza Strip: Gunmen Block Roads (The coming Palestinian civil war)
The War On Terror Is A War For Drugs And Oil
Former G.I.'s, Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go
|
|
|
