| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjUwMCBEYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2006 07:56:27 PM |
| Object: |
WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2006 AD |
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3DSMI2006=
0209&articleId=3D1928
Bush's War Plan includes the Use of Nuclear Weapons
by Jack A. Smith
February 9, 2006
Hudson Valley (N.Y.) Activist Newsletter
The United States government is preparing for an eventual nuclear war
with a determination approximating Cold War standards, but this time
with an expressed preemptive first-strike option against even
non-nuclear countries.
During the 15 years following the implosion of the Soviet Union,
Washington has been upgrading the efficiency and kill power of its
10,000 warhead nuclear arsenal, and has been modernizing its delivery
fleet of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, warships and bombers.
Many aging weapons have been eliminated since the Cold War, but new and
more deadly instruments of mass destruction have already been deployed,
with many more on the way.
The anticipated =E2=80=9Cpeace dividend=E2=80=9D from the end of the Cold W=
ar never
materialized except in the paradoxical configuration of a profitable
war dividend for the military-industrial complex, a large portion of
which is derived from nuclear weapons and various support systems.
=E2=80=9CThe United States continues to spend billions of dollars annually =
to
maintain and upgrade its nuclear forces,=E2=80=9D according to an article
titled =E2=80=9CU.S. Nuclear Forces 2006=E2=80=9D in the January-February i=
ssue of
the prestigious Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. =E2=80=9CIt is deploying=
a
larger and more accurate preemptive nuclear strike capability in the
Asia-Pacific region, and shifting its doctrine toward targeting U.S.
strategic nuclear forces against =E2=80=98weapons of mass destruction=E2=80=
=99
complexes and command centers.
=E2=80=9CThe Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to
reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from
the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a
family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat
today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as
OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.=E2=80=9D
In a chilling and ambiguous statement before the release of the
Pentagon=E2=80=99s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Defense Secretary Dona=
ld
Rumsfeld explained the plan as the product of =E2=80=9Cthinking about the
21st century in a way that=E2=80=99s different from the 20th century. . . .
We=E2=80=99re trying to figure out how you conduct a war against something
other than a nation-state and how . . . you conduct a war in countries
that you are not at war with.=E2=80=9D
The Pentagon expects the so-called War on Terrorism, which it has just
officially renamed the =E2=80=9CLong War,=E2=80=9D to last at least 20 year=
s,
according to a statement to the American Forces Press Service Jan. 25
by Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, assistant to the head of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. In his statement he equated the Long War against a
relative handful of opponents to the Cold War between the two
superpowers.
Odierno was speaking about the use of unconventional =E2=80=9Cspecial
operations=E2=80=9D during the new-type conflict, referring to a =E2=80=9Ch=
olistic
concept=E2=80=9D but evidently not mentioning nuclear weapons in his
interview. Obviously, the new war plan at least in part is intended to
avoid another defeat such as U.S. forces have experienced in the Iraq
War. Full-scale ground invasions do not appear to loom large in
20-Year-War planning.
The Pentagon remains prepared as usual to fight two major wars and a
couple of insurgencies simultaneously. But its new type of =E2=80=9Cfull
scale dominance=E2=80=9D over terrorism focuses on special operations,
special military forces, an electronic battlefield, ground and air
robots, communications and surveillance mastery, control of the skies
and space, political and economic subversion, sanctions,
assassinations, a worldwide propaganda apparatus, and, now, the pi=C3=A8ce
de r=C3=A9sistance =E2=80=94 precision nuclear attacks when desired.
The militarist mind perceives two anticipated advantages to this new
plan: (1) It will require far fewer =E2=80=9Cboots on the ground,=E2=80=9D =
and (2)
the specific mini-wars within the Long War will be brief. The fewer the
=E2=80=9Cboots,=E2=80=9D the fewer the grumblings by the American people ab=
out GI
deaths; the briefer the engagement, the less likely it will be
remembered a week later by a nation absorbed in trivia, commerce,
consumerism, and a strong attachment to being Number One in the world.
Gen. Richard B. Meyers testified about the new plan in Senate hearings
last April. He said that the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which
directs global and space strike operations, =E2=80=9Chas revised our
strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the
fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible
options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat
adversaries in a wider range of contingencies."
One aspect of the OPLAN=E2=80=99s global strike scenario is CONPLAN 8022,
which the Bulletin article describes as =E2=80=9Ca concept plan for the qui=
ck
use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to
destroy =E2=80=94 preemptively, if necessary =E2=80=94 =E2=80=98time-urgent=
targets=E2=80=99
anywhere in the world. . . . As a result, the Bush administration's
preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic
submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs).=E2=80=9D
Preemption in concert with a nuclear first strike became implicit U.S.
policy in the Bush administration=E2=80=99s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in
late 2001 and has become more explicit since then. During the Cold War,
the USSR pledged never to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a
first strike against nuclear or non-nuclear states, but the U.S.
stubbornly refused to follow suit.
Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert and project director at
the Federation of American Scientists, wrote the following of CONPLAN
in last September=E2=80=99s Arms Control Today: =E2=80=9CForemost among the
doctrine=E2=80=99s new features are the incorporation of preemption into U.=
S=2E
nuclear doctrine and the integration of conventional weapons and
missile defenses into strategic planning. . . . The new nuclear
doctrine makes it clear that the United States will not necessarily
wait for the attack but preempt with nuclear weapons if necessary.=E2=80=9D
One of the several reasons the Pentagon may use nuclear weapons in a
preemptive attack, Kristensen said, is as a =E2=80=9Cdemonstration of U.S.
intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD
use.=E2=80=9D Theoretically, had the plan been in full operation at the tim=
e,
President George W. Bush could have let loose nuclear weapons against
Iraq under the false assumption that it possessed WMD and was preparing
to attack America. (Bush in October 2002: "Saddam Hussein is a
homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction ....
[and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions
targeting the United States.=E2=80=9D)
According to military affairs expert William Arkin writing in the
Washington Post May 15 last year, CONPLAN authorizes =E2=80=9Cfor the first
time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and
North Korea. . . . The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in
reserve if intelligence suggests an =E2=80=98imminent=E2=80=99 launch of an=
enemy
nuclear strike on the U.S. or if there is a need to destroy
hard-to-reach targets.=E2=80=9D Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and
insists that it will never build them (D.P.R. Korea may have one or two
small weapons without an effective delivery system to reach the U.S. or
an intention to use them.). CONPLAN thus entertains the use of nuclear
weapons against a non-nuclear state, an explicit violation of the 1970
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) =E2=80=94 preemptively, and thus
illegally, at that.
Commenting on Tomdispatch.com 10 days after Arkin=E2=80=99s revelations,
long-time anti-nuclear analyst Jonathan Schell declared: =E2=80=9CIn a
shocking innovation in American nuclear policy . . . the administration
has created and placed on continuous high alert a force whereby the
president can launch a pinpoint strike, including a nuclear strike,
anywhere on earth with a few hours=E2=80=99 notice. . . . These actions make
operational a revolution in U.S. nuclear policy.=E2=80=9D
Washington does not publicly disclose the names of the
=E2=80=9Cadversaries=E2=80=9D against whom such nuclear weapons are aimed. =
Bush
Administration and Pentagon documents usually refer to =E2=80=9Crogue
states,=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cterrorists,=E2=80=9D but this seems to be a d=
eception. It
is absurd to suggest that the world=E2=80=99s strongest conventional and
nuclear military power will be threatened by any of the so-called
=E2=80=9Crogue states,=E2=80=9D all of which are spectacularly weaker than =
the U.S.
As far as the co-called War on Terrorism and terrorists are concerned,
even if a small atomic device could be acquired and hand-delivered by
al-Qaeda to a target in the U.S. =E2=80=94 a most unlikely event =E2=80=94 =
what use
is America=E2=80=99s huge nuclear arsenal against a suicidal fanatic with a
weapon of any kind and no state to retaliate against?
The only rational explanation for Washington=E2=80=99s continual
modernization of its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems is (1) to
remain the planet=E2=80=99s sole superpower against all competitors includi=
ng
China and the European Union, and (2) to extend U.S. military, economic
and political hegemony throughout the entire world to the point of
creating a 21st century American Empire. (For those who blanch at the
suggestion of empire, note that even Jimmy Carter, as you will see
below, now deplores the quest for =E2=80=9CAmerican imperial dominance,=E2=
=80=9D a
formulation that could have been lifted from the pages of Monthly
Review.)
Even though there are irrefutable indications that Russia and D.P.R.
Korea remain among the states foremost in the Pentagon=E2=80=99s nuclear
bombsights, as undoubtedly do Iran, Syria and others, China has become
the principal target =E2=80=94 not because it is a military threat but as a
potential economic and geopolitical rival of the first magnitude.
China, which is itself threatened by the nuclear potential of American
air bases in close proximity (thanks to the spoils of the Afghan war),
the hellfire of ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles
from the U.S., and the brimstone of submarine-launched missiles from
the Pacific, is expected to overtake the U.S. as the world=E2=80=99s leading
economic power in 35 to 40 years. Nuclear weapons intimidate as well as
kill, and there may come a time when China will have to be =E2=80=9Cput in
its place=E2=80=9D one way or the other.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, written by Robert S.
Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, states the following: =E2=80=9CDuring the pa=
st
few years, the navy has significantly changed the homeporting of SSBNs
[nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines] to meet new planning
requirements. . . . The primary goal of the shift is to increase
coverage of targets in China, according to navy officials.
(Pacific-based SSBNs also target Russia and North Korea.).=E2=80=9D
Until 2002, the U.S. maintained 10 SSBNs in the Atlantic and four in
the Pacific. Today there are nine missile submarines in the Pacific and
five in the Atlantic. By 2008, the fleet of 14 SSBNs will share 336
Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles armed with 2,000
nuclear warheads. These ballistic missiles deliver their deadly payload
faster than land- or air-launched missiles.
Launching the program to cover the Pacific Rim with the improved
Tridents, Rear Adm. Charles B. Young declared in August 2002 that the
move "enhances system accuracy, payload, and hard-target capability,
thus improving [U.S.] available responses to existing and emerging
Pacific theater threats." Once again, those =E2=80=9Cthreats=E2=80=9D were
unspecified.
Advance reports about the Pentagon=E2=80=99s QDR indicate that the Navy=E2=
=80=99s
=E2=80=9Cgreater presence in the Pacific Ocean=E2=80=9D includes a permanent
increase to at least six aircraft carriers =E2=80=94 half the fleet. The
report also requests the =E2=80=9Creturn to a steady-state production rate =
of
two attack submarines per year not later than 2012.=E2=80=9D Each submarine
costs a minimum of $2 billion. In all probability, most of the new subs
will prowl Pacific waters.
In addition to nuclear warheads, the Pentagon seeks to install 96
conventional warheads on 26 of its multiple-warhead Trident submarine
launched ballistic missiles. The reason, Bloomburg News reported Jan.
17, =E2=80=9Cis to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy
command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).=E2=80=
=9D
William Arkin has written that =E2=80=9CThis weapon would give the U.S.
global conventional preemption =E2=80=94 a first-strike capability =E2=80=
=94 in 30
minutes to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership
facilities.=E2=80=9D He posits that ballistic missile submarines are now
=E2=80=9Cthe front line of U.S. offensive capabilities.=E2=80=9D
The Pentagon has scrapped its obsolete ground-based MX Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but is strengthening its Minuteman
III force of 500 missiles with perhaps 800 warheads. Modernization of
the Minuteman, according to the Bulletin article, =E2=80=9Ccontinues under =
an
ambitious $7 billion-$8 billion, six-part program intended to improve
the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life
beyond 2020.=E2=80=9D The Air Force is developing an entirely new ICBM which
it hopes to have ready in 2018.
The U.S. has recently modernized its fleet of long-range nuclear
bombers, the B-2A Spirit and the B-52H Stratofortress. =E2=80=9CNeither
bomber is maintained on day-to-day alert as during the Cold War,=E2=80=9D
report Norris and Kristensen, =E2=80=9Cyet the alert level has increased wi=
th
the recent tasking of bomber wings in Global Strike missions.=E2=80=9C By
2018, according to the QDR draft, the Pentagon desires to =E2=80=9Cdevelop a
new land-based penetrating long-range strike capability.
These bombers carry a mix of nuclear weapons ranging in size from 10
kilotons to 1.2 megatons. One nuclear kiloton emits the energy
equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT. A 1.2 megaton bomb is the energy
equivalent of 1.2 million tons (2.4 billion pounds) of TNT.
To convey what this means in practice we will quote from an article by
Conn Hallinan that appeared on Portside Feb. 1. He was discussing the
primitive atom bomb named =E2=80=9CLittle Boy=E2=80=9D with the power of 13
kilotons that the U.S dropped from a B-29 named =E2=80=9CEnola Gay=E2=80=9D=
on the
city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, a day that, like the Holocaust,
must happen =E2=80=9Cnever again=E2=80=9D: =E2=80=9CThe fireball that consu=
med Hiroshima
reached 18 million degrees in one millionth of a second. It evaporated
68% of the city, demolishing structures built to withstand an 8.5
earthquake. It charred trees five miles from ground zero, blew out
windows 17 miles from the city=E2=80=99s center, and killed 100,000 people
[almost all civilians] in a single blow. Another 100,000 plus would
follow in the months ahead.=E2=80=9D
By comparison, the most powerful weapon used against the U.S.
occupation army by the resistance in Iraq is the IED (improvised
explosive device) =E2=80=94 a homemade =E2=80=9Croadside=E2=80=9D bomb with=
only a few
pounds of explosive material. The biggest ever of these weapons
contained about 200 pounds of TNT.
Even so, they have been effective enough for the new Pentagon budget to
allocate spending over $3.3 billion, following a previous $2 billon, to
devise a deterrent to IEDs, which so far has proved elusive. As the
Pentagon invests astronomical billions on a technologically awesome
array of modern mechanisms of death and destruction, it may be useful
to recall that the operative weapon used to commandeer airplanes for
the suicide missions of Sept. 11, 2001, was a dozen or so box cutters
that cost a couple of dollars each =E2=80=94 but we digress.
Considering Washington=E2=80=99s calculated hysteria about Iran=E2=80=99s d=
esire to
build nuclear power plants, which do not contravene the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is interesting to note that the U.S.
routinely violates the treaty in two major ways.
First, as mentioned earlier, it is contrary to the NPT to threaten
non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons, as the U.S. now does. Last
Dec. 5, 16 Congressional Democrats sent a message of concern to
President Bush about the new nuclear doctrine, which contained these
words about the treaty: =E2=80=9CThis drastic shift in U.S. nuclear policy
threatens the very foundation of nuclear arms control as shaped by the
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which has helped prevent nuclear
proliferation for over 35 years. In the context of efforts to
strengthen and extend the treaty, the United States issued a negative
nuclear security assurance in 1978, reiterated in 1995, that the United
States would not use nuclear force against NPT member countries without
nuclear weapons unless attacked by a non nuclear-weapon state that is
allied with a nuclear-weapon state.=E2=80=9D
Second, while pledging the nearly 180 non-nuclear nations which have
signed the NPT to eschew developing nuclear weapons, the treaty further
obliges the U.S., USSR, Britain, France and China to take steps toward
nuclear disarmament. But according to David Krieger, president of the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: =E2=80=9CThe United States has failed to
fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the NPT, requiring good
faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament =E2=80=94 for more than 30
years. The United States [also] has failed to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty and has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty.=E2=80=9D
By scoffing at the notion of nuclear disarmament in practice, by
modernizing its nuclear capability, and by embracing an aggressive
first-strike policy, Washington is not only violating the NPT but is
contributing toward the proliferation of nuclear weapons. =E2=80=9CNothing
could be more calculated to goad other nations into nuclear
proliferation,=E2=80=9D is how Jonathan Schell put it.
As long as the U.S. maintains its huge arsenal, none of the eight other
nuclear-enabled states are willing to significantly disarm. Meanwhile
other countries begin to consider obtaining nuclear weapons as a
defense against a possible American attack, a hardly illogical
consequence of Washington=E2=80=99s nuclear equivalent of saber rattling.
D=2EP.R. Korea=E2=80=99s tiny nuclear capability, for example, was develope=
d to
defend itself against U.S. threats, and as a bargaining chip in hopes
of a negotiated peace with Washington, which never signed a peace
treaty with Pyongyang after the Korean war almost 53 years ago. The
USSR developed nuclear weapons because it feared Washington would
vaporize Moscow the way it did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lest it be
forgotten that one of the principal reasons the U.S. destroyed these
two Japanese cities was as a warning to the non-nuclear Soviet Union.
China obtained nuclear weapons for the same reason.
Britain and France built nuclear bombs so as not to be completely
dominated by and dependent upon the reigning hegemon of the post-war
capitalist world. India and Pakistan developed their weapons against
each other, but the U.S. has been winking and nodding toward them, just
as it does toward Israel=E2=80=99s nearly 200 nuclear weapons. These last
three countries are in outright violation of the entire
non-proliferation treaty, which they refuse to sign =E2=80=94 and they rema=
in
American allies, while non-nuclear Iran is a potential nuclear target
for the U.S. and Israel for insisting on building a nuclear power
station. Washington=E2=80=99s hypocrisy about Iran=E2=80=99s actions has re=
ached
the point on Feb. 4 where a spokesperson charged that Teheran was
=E2=80=9Cthreatening the world.=E2=80=9D (See article below, =E2=80=9CIran =
and the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Arguing that the Bush Administration=E2=80=99s Global Strike policy is a
=E2=80=9Cnegative trend for nuclear proliferation,=E2=80=9D Theresa Hitchen=
s, a
vice president at the Center for Defense Information, noted in a 2003
report that the seeds for this policy were planted during the Clinton
Administration. She was referring to then-Defense Secretary Les
Aspin=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Ccounter-proliferation=E2=80=9D strategy, which was=
based on
taking defensive and offensive measures against the acquisition of WMD
by small countries. The use of U.S. nuclear weapons in this endeavor
was left open in what has been termed by the Arms Control Association
as =E2=80=9Cstrategic ambiguity.=E2=80=9D
Opposition to the Bush Administration=E2=80=99s reckless nuclear strategy is
generating domestic opposition but it is relatively small so far. There
has been sufficient criticism, however, for the Pentagon on Feb. 2 to
decide against publishing its long-delayed revised draft of the
=E2=80=9CDoctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,=E2=80=9D which was to provi=
de a
precise public statement on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
Newspaper leaks over the last months, combined with some congressional
opposition, convinced the Bush Administration to eliminate the report.
But as Hans Kristensen wrote for the Nuclear Information Project the
day the report was withdrawn: =E2=80=9CThe decision to cancel the documents
simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from
the Pentagon's internal reading list. The White House and Pentagon
guidance that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by
the cancellation.
Former President Jimmy Carter has sharply condemned Bush=E2=80=99s nuclear
program, which he implied was a product of U.S. imperialism. On Nov. 20
he declared:
=E2=80=9CThere are determined efforts by U.S. leaders to exert American
imperial dominance throughout the world. These revolutionary policies
have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's
tremendous power and influence should not be internationally
constrained. At the same time, our political leaders have declared
independence from the restraints of international organizations and
have disavowed long-standing global agreements, including agreements on
nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international
system of justice.
=E2=80=9CInstead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their
further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of
others) to retain our arsenals, expand them and, therefore, abrogate or
derogate almost all nuclear arms-control agreements negotiated during
the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear
proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of 'first
use' of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations and is
contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in
space.=E2=80=9D
Since 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has featured a
=E2=80=9CDoomsday Clock=E2=80=9D as part of its front cover. When and if th=
e clock
hands reach midnight, it will indicate that nuclear war is about to
destroy the world. The worst years for the clock were when it reached
three minutes to midnight in 1949, when the USSR joined the U.S. as a
nuclear power, and 1984 after President Ronald Reagan greatly
accelerated the arms race.
The best year was 1991, when the Doomsday Clock was moved back to 17
minutes to midnight as the Cold War ended and the U.S. and USSR signed
the long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) coupled with
further unilateral cuts in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Soon
afterward the Soviet Union dissolved, leading many Americans to believe
that the U.S. would finally get rid of its nuclear sword and shield
=E2=80=9Cdown by the riverside,=E2=80=9D but that was based on an unrealist=
ic
understanding of imperialism.
By 2002, the clock hands moved forward to 7 minutes before midnight =E2=80=
=94
the same position it was in during the intense Cold War year of 1980
=E2=80=94 mainly because the Bush Administration rejected a series of arms
control treaties and said it would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. The Doomsday clock has remained the same until now: too
close to the utilization of nuclear weapons for comfort, assuming one
is even aware of the danger.
The great physicist, pacifist, and socialist Albert Einstein deeply
regretted his intellectual contribution to the construction of nuclear
weapons. (He had feared Nazi Germany would acquire them first.) In the
post-Hiroshima years, Einstein was a strong advocate for complete
nuclear disarmament until the day he died in 1955. In May 1946 he
wrote, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our
modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
The drift to catastrophe continues, less flagrantly than during the
Cold War but no less potentially apocalyptic for being relatively
covert. Washington has become considerably more aggressive now that the
counter-balance of Moscow=E2=80=99s powerful presence no longer exists. The
size and content of America=E2=80=99s nuclear arsenal, combined with its
quest for world hegemony, and its unjust, illegal and immoral policy of
preemptive war, have made the U.S. the most dangerous state in world
history.
The large activist U.S. antiwar movement has essentially relegated the
matter of nuclear weapons to a low priority 15 years after the end of
the Cold War in order to concentrate on stopping the war in Iraq. But
if we do not wish the hands of the Doomsday Clock to tick closer to
midnight, it will be incumbent upon the peace forces to pay far more
attention to Washington=E2=80=99s disastrous nuclear policy.
A domestic constituency exists for complete nuclear disarmament.
According to an Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs
10 months ago, 66% of Americans believe no nation, including the U.S.,
should possess nuclear weapons. Polls in many nations are in agreement.
Most people in the world fear nuclear weapons and want them destroyed.
The longer we wait, the longer =E2=80=9Cwe drift toward unparalleled
catastrophe." While continuing the struggle against the unjust Iraq
adventure and the Pentagon=E2=80=99s 20-year Long War, let=E2=80=99s raise =
that
fighting banner too long in disuse =E2=80=94 Ban the Bomb! In the
unforgettable words at the melancholy conclusion of =E2=80=9COn the Beach,=
=E2=80=9D
the popular 1959 anti-nuclear film, =E2=80=9CThere is still time.=E2=80=9D =
But it
is ticking away, more quickly than we think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries:
=C2=A9 Copyright Jack A. Smith, Hudson Valley (N.Y.) Activist Newsletter,
2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3DSMI20060209&ar=
ticleId=3D1928
=20
=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
| User: "u2 fan" |
|
| Title: Re: WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2006 AD |
10 Feb 2006 05:02:27 PM |
|
|
If they spent as much money on peace as they did on war, there would be no
more war.
--
www.u2fan.org.uk
"The Last 2500 DaysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1139536587.934301.316550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20060209&articleId=1928
Bush's War Plan includes the Use of Nuclear Weapons
by Jack A. Smith
February 9, 2006
Hudson Valley (N.Y.) Activist Newsletter
The United States government is preparing for an eventual nuclear war
with a determination approximating Cold War standards, but this time
with an expressed preemptive first-strike option against even
non-nuclear countries.
During the 15 years following the implosion of the Soviet Union,
Washington has been upgrading the efficiency and kill power of its
10,000 warhead nuclear arsenal, and has been modernizing its delivery
fleet of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, warships and bombers.
Many aging weapons have been eliminated since the Cold War, but new and
more deadly instruments of mass destruction have already been deployed,
with many more on the way.
The anticipated "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War never
materialized except in the paradoxical configuration of a profitable
war dividend for the military-industrial complex, a large portion of
which is derived from nuclear weapons and various support systems.
"The United States continues to spend billions of dollars annually to
maintain and upgrade its nuclear forces," according to an article
titled "U.S. Nuclear Forces 2006" in the January-February issue of
the prestigious Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "It is deploying a
larger and more accurate preemptive nuclear strike capability in the
Asia-Pacific region, and shifting its doctrine toward targeting U.S.
strategic nuclear forces against 'weapons of mass destruction'
complexes and command centers.
"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to
reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from
the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a
family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat
today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as
OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044."
In a chilling and ambiguous statement before the release of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld explained the plan as the product of "thinking about the
21st century in a way that's different from the 20th century. . . .
We're trying to figure out how you conduct a war against something
other than a nation-state and how . . . you conduct a war in countries
that you are not at war with."
The Pentagon expects the so-called War on Terrorism, which it has just
officially renamed the "Long War," to last at least 20 years,
according to a statement to the American Forces Press Service Jan. 25
by Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, assistant to the head of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. In his statement he equated the Long War against a
relative handful of opponents to the Cold War between the two
superpowers.
Odierno was speaking about the use of unconventional "special
operations" during the new-type conflict, referring to a "holistic
concept" but evidently not mentioning nuclear weapons in his
interview. Obviously, the new war plan at least in part is intended to
avoid another defeat such as U.S. forces have experienced in the Iraq
War. Full-scale ground invasions do not appear to loom large in
20-Year-War planning.
The Pentagon remains prepared as usual to fight two major wars and a
couple of insurgencies simultaneously. But its new type of "full
scale dominance" over terrorism focuses on special operations,
special military forces, an electronic battlefield, ground and air
robots, communications and surveillance mastery, control of the skies
and space, political and economic subversion, sanctions,
assassinations, a worldwide propaganda apparatus, and, now, the pièce
de résistance - precision nuclear attacks when desired.
The militarist mind perceives two anticipated advantages to this new
plan: (1) It will require far fewer "boots on the ground," and (2)
the specific mini-wars within the Long War will be brief. The fewer the
"boots," the fewer the grumblings by the American people about GI
deaths; the briefer the engagement, the less likely it will be
remembered a week later by a nation absorbed in trivia, commerce,
consumerism, and a strong attachment to being Number One in the world.
Gen. Richard B. Meyers testified about the new plan in Senate hearings
last April. He said that the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which
directs global and space strike operations, "has revised our
strategic deterrence and response plan that became effective in the
fall of 2004. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible
options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat
adversaries in a wider range of contingencies."
One aspect of the OPLAN's global strike scenario is CONPLAN 8022,
which the Bulletin article describes as "a concept plan for the quick
use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to
destroy - preemptively, if necessary - 'time-urgent targets'
anywhere in the world. . . . As a result, the Bush administration's
preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic
submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
Preemption in concert with a nuclear first strike became implicit U.S.
policy in the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in
late 2001 and has become more explicit since then. During the Cold War,
the USSR pledged never to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a
first strike against nuclear or non-nuclear states, but the U.S.
stubbornly refused to follow suit.
Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert and project director at
the Federation of American Scientists, wrote the following of CONPLAN
in last September's Arms Control Today: "Foremost among the
doctrine's new features are the incorporation of preemption into U.S.
nuclear doctrine and the integration of conventional weapons and
missile defenses into strategic planning. . . . The new nuclear
doctrine makes it clear that the United States will not necessarily
wait for the attack but preempt with nuclear weapons if necessary."
One of the several reasons the Pentagon may use nuclear weapons in a
preemptive attack, Kristensen said, is as a "demonstration of U.S.
intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD
use." Theoretically, had the plan been in full operation at the time,
President George W. Bush could have let loose nuclear weapons against
Iraq under the false assumption that it possessed WMD and was preparing
to attack America. (Bush in October 2002: "Saddam Hussein is a
homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction ....
[and who] is exploring ways of using [aerial vehicles] for missions
targeting the United States.")
According to military affairs expert William Arkin writing in the
Washington Post May 15 last year, CONPLAN authorizes "for the first
time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and
North Korea. . . . The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in
reserve if intelligence suggests an 'imminent' launch of an enemy
nuclear strike on the U.S. or if there is a need to destroy
hard-to-reach targets." Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and
insists that it will never build them (D.P.R. Korea may have one or two
small weapons without an effective delivery system to reach the U.S. or
an intention to use them.). CONPLAN thus entertains the use of nuclear
weapons against a non-nuclear state, an explicit violation of the 1970
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) - preemptively, and thus
illegally, at that.
Commenting on Tomdispatch.com 10 days after Arkin's revelations,
long-time anti-nuclear analyst Jonathan Schell declared: "In a
shocking innovation in American nuclear policy . . . the administration
has created and placed on continuous high alert a force whereby the
president can launch a pinpoint strike, including a nuclear strike,
anywhere on earth with a few hours' notice. . . . These actions make
operational a revolution in U.S. nuclear policy."
Washington does not publicly disclose the names of the
"adversaries" against whom such nuclear weapons are aimed. Bush
Administration and Pentagon documents usually refer to "rogue
states," and "terrorists," but this seems to be a deception. It
is absurd to suggest that the world's strongest conventional and
nuclear military power will be threatened by any of the so-called
"rogue states," all of which are spectacularly weaker than the U.S.
As far as the co-called War on Terrorism and terrorists are concerned,
even if a small atomic device could be acquired and hand-delivered by
al-Qaeda to a target in the U.S. - a most unlikely event - what use
is America's huge nuclear arsenal against a suicidal fanatic with a
weapon of any kind and no state to retaliate against?
The only rational explanation for Washington's continual
modernization of its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems is (1) to
remain the planet's sole superpower against all competitors including
China and the European Union, and (2) to extend U.S. military, economic
and political hegemony throughout the entire world to the point of
creating a 21st century American Empire. (For those who blanch at the
suggestion of empire, note that even Jimmy Carter, as you will see
below, now deplores the quest for "American imperial dominance," a
formulation that could have been lifted from the pages of Monthly
Review.)
Even though there are irrefutable indications that Russia and D.P.R.
Korea remain among the states foremost in the Pentagon's nuclear
bombsights, as undoubtedly do Iran, Syria and others, China has become
the principal target - not because it is a military threat but as a
potential economic and geopolitical rival of the first magnitude.
China, which is itself threatened by the nuclear potential of American
air bases in close proximity (thanks to the spoils of the Afghan war),
the hellfire of ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles
from the U.S., and the brimstone of submarine-launched missiles from
the Pacific, is expected to overtake the U.S. as the world's leading
economic power in 35 to 40 years. Nuclear weapons intimidate as well as
kill, and there may come a time when China will have to be "put in
its place" one way or the other.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, written by Robert S.
Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, states the following: "During the past
few years, the navy has significantly changed the homeporting of SSBNs
[nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines] to meet new planning
requirements. . . . The primary goal of the shift is to increase
coverage of targets in China, according to navy officials.
(Pacific-based SSBNs also target Russia and North Korea.)."
Until 2002, the U.S. maintained 10 SSBNs in the Atlantic and four in
the Pacific. Today there are nine missile submarines in the Pacific and
five in the Atlantic. By 2008, the fleet of 14 SSBNs will share 336
Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles armed with 2,000
nuclear warheads. These ballistic missiles deliver their deadly payload
faster than land- or air-launched missiles.
Launching the program to cover the Pacific Rim with the improved
Tridents, Rear Adm. Charles B. Young declared in August 2002 that the
move "enhances system accuracy, payload, and hard-target capability,
thus improving [U.S.] available responses to existing and emerging
Pacific theater threats." Once again, those "threats" were
unspecified.
Advance reports about the Pentagon's QDR indicate that the Navy's
"greater presence in the Pacific Ocean" includes a permanent
increase to at least six aircraft carriers - half the fleet. The
report also requests the "return to a steady-state production rate of
two attack submarines per year not later than 2012." Each submarine
costs a minimum of $2 billion. In all probability, most of the new subs
will prowl Pacific waters.
In addition to nuclear warheads, the Pentagon seeks to install 96
conventional warheads on 26 of its multiple-warhead Trident submarine
launched ballistic missiles. The reason, Bloomburg News reported Jan.
17, "is to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy
command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
William Arkin has written that "This weapon would give the U.S.
global conventional preemption - a first-strike capability - in 30
minutes to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership
facilities." He posits that ballistic missile submarines are now
"the front line of U.S. offensive capabilities."
The Pentagon has scrapped its obsolete ground-based MX Peacekeeper
intercontinental ballistic missiles, but is strengthening its Minuteman
III force of 500 missiles with perhaps 800 warheads. Modernization of
the Minuteman, according to the Bulletin article, "continues under an
ambitious $7 billion-$8 billion, six-part program intended to improve
the missile's accuracy and reliability and extend its service life
beyond 2020." The Air Force is developing an entirely new ICBM which
it hopes to have ready in 2018.
The U.S. has recently modernized its fleet of long-range nuclear
bombers, the B-2A Spirit and the B-52H Stratofortress. "Neither
bomber is maintained on day-to-day alert as during the Cold War,"
report Norris and Kristensen, "yet the alert level has increased with
the recent tasking of bomber wings in Global Strike missions." By
2018, according to the QDR draft, the Pentagon desires to "develop a
new land-based penetrating long-range strike capability.
These bombers carry a mix of nuclear weapons ranging in size from 10
kilotons to 1.2 megatons. One nuclear kiloton emits the energy
equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT. A 1.2 megaton bomb is the energy
equivalent of 1.2 million tons (2.4 billion pounds) of TNT.
To convey what this means in practice we will quote from an article by
Conn Hallinan that appeared on Portside Feb. 1. He was discussing the
primitive atom bomb named "Little Boy" with the power of 13
kilotons that the U.S dropped from a B-29 named "Enola Gay" on the
city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, a day that, like the Holocaust,
must happen "never again": "The fireball that consumed Hiroshima
reached 18 million degrees in one millionth of a second. It evaporated
68% of the city, demolishing structures built to withstand an 8.5
earthquake. It charred trees five miles from ground zero, blew out
windows 17 miles from the city's center, and killed 100,000 people
[almost all civilians] in a single blow. Another 100,000 plus would
follow in the months ahead."
By comparison, the most powerful weapon used against the U.S.
occupation army by the resistance in Iraq is the IED (improvised
explosive device) - a homemade "roadside" bomb with only a few
pounds of explosive material. The biggest ever of these weapons
contained about 200 pounds of TNT.
Even so, they have been effective enough for the new Pentagon budget to
allocate spending over $3.3 billion, following a previous $2 billon, to
devise a deterrent to IEDs, which so far has proved elusive. As the
Pentagon invests astronomical billions on a technologically awesome
array of modern mechanisms of death and destruction, it may be useful
to recall that the operative weapon used to commandeer airplanes for
the suicide missions of Sept. 11, 2001, was a dozen or so box cutters
that cost a couple of dollars each - but we digress.
Considering Washington's calculated hysteria about Iran's desire to
build nuclear power plants, which do not contravene the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is interesting to note that the U.S.
routinely violates the treaty in two major ways.
First, as mentioned earlier, it is contrary to the NPT to threaten
non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons, as the U.S. now does. Last
Dec. 5, 16 Congressional Democrats sent a message of concern to
President Bush about the new nuclear doctrine, which contained these
words about the treaty: "This drastic shift in U.S. nuclear policy
threatens the very foundation of nuclear arms control as shaped by the
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which has helped prevent nuclear
proliferation for over 35 years. In the context of efforts to
strengthen and extend the treaty, the United States issued a negative
nuclear security assurance in 1978, reiterated in 1995, that the United
States would not use nuclear force against NPT member countries without
nuclear weapons unless attacked by a non nuclear-weapon state that is
allied with a nuclear-weapon state."
Second, while pledging the nearly 180 non-nuclear nations which have
signed the NPT to eschew developing nuclear weapons, the treaty further
obliges the U.S., USSR, Britain, France and China to take steps toward
nuclear disarmament. But according to David Krieger, president of the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: "The United States has failed to
fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the NPT, requiring good
faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament - for more than 30
years. The United States [also] has failed to ratify the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty and has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty."
By scoffing at the notion of nuclear disarmament in practice, by
modernizing its nuclear capability, and by embracing an aggressive
first-strike policy, Washington is not only violating the NPT but is
contributing toward the proliferation of nuclear weapons. "Nothing
could be more calculated to goad other nations into nuclear
proliferation," is how Jonathan Schell put it.
As long as the U.S. maintains its huge arsenal, none of the eight other
nuclear-enabled states are willing to significantly disarm. Meanwhile
other countries begin to consider obtaining nuclear weapons as a
defense against a possible American attack, a hardly illogical
consequence of Washington's nuclear equivalent of saber rattling.
D.P.R. Korea's tiny nuclear capability, for example, was developed to
defend itself against U.S. threats, and as a bargaining chip in hopes
of a negotiated peace with Washington, which never signed a peace
treaty with Pyongyang after the Korean war almost 53 years ago. The
USSR developed nuclear weapons because it feared Washington would
vaporize Moscow the way it did Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lest it be
forgotten that one of the principal reasons the U.S. destroyed these
two Japanese cities was as a warning to the non-nuclear Soviet Union.
China obtained nuclear weapons for the same reason.
Britain and France built nuclear bombs so as not to be completely
dominated by and dependent upon the reigning hegemon of the post-war
capitalist world. India and Pakistan developed their weapons against
each other, but the U.S. has been winking and nodding toward them, just
as it does toward Israel's nearly 200 nuclear weapons. These last
three countries are in outright violation of the entire
non-proliferation treaty, which they refuse to sign - and they remain
American allies, while non-nuclear Iran is a potential nuclear target
for the U.S. and Israel for insisting on building a nuclear power
station. Washington's hypocrisy about Iran's actions has reached
the point on Feb. 4 where a spokesperson charged that Teheran was
"threatening the world." (See article below, "Iran and the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.)
Arguing that the Bush Administration's Global Strike policy is a
"negative trend for nuclear proliferation," Theresa Hitchens, a
vice president at the Center for Defense Information, noted in a 2003
report that the seeds for this policy were planted during the Clinton
Administration. She was referring to then-Defense Secretary Les
Aspin's "counter-proliferation" strategy, which was based on
taking defensive and offensive measures against the acquisition of WMD
by small countries. The use of U.S. nuclear weapons in this endeavor
was left open in what has been termed by the Arms Control Association
as "strategic ambiguity."
Opposition to the Bush Administration's reckless nuclear strategy is
generating domestic opposition but it is relatively small so far. There
has been sufficient criticism, however, for the Pentagon on Feb. 2 to
decide against publishing its long-delayed revised draft of the
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was to provide a
precise public statement on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
Newspaper leaks over the last months, combined with some congressional
opposition, convinced the Bush Administration to eliminate the report.
But as Hans Kristensen wrote for the Nuclear Information Project the
day the report was withdrawn: "The decision to cancel the documents
simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from
the Pentagon's internal reading list. The White House and Pentagon
guidance that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by
the cancellation.
Former President Jimmy Carter has sharply condemned Bush's nuclear
program, which he implied was a product of U.S. imperialism. On Nov. 20
he declared:
"There are determined efforts by U.S. leaders to exert American
imperial dominance throughout the world. These revolutionary policies
have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's
tremendous power and influence should not be internationally
constrained. At the same time, our political leaders have declared
independence from the restraints of international organizations and
have disavowed long-standing global agreements, including agreements on
nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international
system of justice.
"Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their
further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of
others) to retain our arsenals, expand them and, therefore, abrogate or
derogate almost all nuclear arms-control agreements negotiated during
the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear
proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of 'first
use' of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations and is
contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in
space."
Since 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has featured a
"Doomsday Clock" as part of its front cover. When and if the clock
hands reach midnight, it will indicate that nuclear war is about to
destroy the world. The worst years for the clock were when it reached
three minutes to midnight in 1949, when the USSR joined the U.S. as a
nuclear power, and 1984 after President Ronald Reagan greatly
accelerated the arms race.
The best year was 1991, when the Doomsday Clock was moved back to 17
minutes to midnight as the Cold War ended and the U.S. and USSR signed
the long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) coupled with
further unilateral cuts in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Soon
afterward the Soviet Union dissolved, leading many Americans to believe
that the U.S. would finally get rid of its nuclear sword and shield
"down by the riverside," but that was based on an unrealistic
understanding of imperialism.
By 2002, the clock hands moved forward to 7 minutes before midnight -
the same position it was in during the intense Cold War year of 1980
- mainly because the Bush Administration rejected a series of arms
control treaties and said it would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. The Doomsday clock has remained the same until now: too
close to the utilization of nuclear weapons for comfort, assuming one
is even aware of the danger.
The great physicist, pacifist, and socialist Albert Einstein deeply
regretted his intellectual contribution to the construction of nuclear
weapons. (He had feared Nazi Germany would acquire them first.) In the
post-Hiroshima years, Einstein was a strong advocate for complete
nuclear disarmament until the day he died in 1955. In May 1946 he
wrote, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our
modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
The drift to catastrophe continues, less flagrantly than during the
Cold War but no less potentially apocalyptic for being relatively
covert. Washington has become considerably more aggressive now that the
counter-balance of Moscow's powerful presence no longer exists. The
size and content of America's nuclear arsenal, combined with its
quest for world hegemony, and its unjust, illegal and immoral policy of
preemptive war, have made the U.S. the most dangerous state in world
history.
The large activist U.S. antiwar movement has essentially relegated the
matter of nuclear weapons to a low priority 15 years after the end of
the Cold War in order to concentrate on stopping the war in Iraq. But
if we do not wish the hands of the Doomsday Clock to tick closer to
midnight, it will be incumbent upon the peace forces to pay far more
attention to Washington's disastrous nuclear policy.
A domestic constituency exists for complete nuclear disarmament.
According to an Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs
10 months ago, 66% of Americans believe no nation, including the U.S.,
should possess nuclear weapons. Polls in many nations are in agreement.
Most people in the world fear nuclear weapons and want them destroyed.
The longer we wait, the longer "we drift toward unparalleled
catastrophe." While continuing the struggle against the unjust Iraq
adventure and the Pentagon's 20-year Long War, let's raise that
fighting banner too long in disuse - Ban the Bomb! In the
unforgettable words at the melancholy conclusion of "On the Beach,"
the popular 1959 anti-nuclear film, "There is still time." But it
is ticking away, more quickly than we think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries:
© Copyright Jack A. Smith, Hudson Valley (N.Y.) Activist Newsletter,
2006
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20060209&articleId=1928
===============================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Wilke" |
|
| Title: Re: WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2006 AD |
10 Feb 2006 05:10:56 PM |
|
|
"u2 fan" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:dsj621$m6o$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
If they spent as much money on peace as they did on war, there would be no
more war.
But who would win the peace?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WORLD WAR III NEWS, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2006 AD |
11 Feb 2006 02:13:11 AM |
|
|
pEACE ON EARTH -- rather than 'Colonies' on earth !!!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
============
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
WORLD WAR III NEWS, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13TH, 2006...US WILL HIT IRAN IF TALKS FAIL
WORLD WAR III NEWS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2006 AD
WORLD WAR III NEWS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8th, 2006, AD
WORLD WAR III NEWS, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14TH, 2006 -- TARGET IRAN - PREPARATIONS BY ALL
WORLD WAR III NEWS, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16TH, 2006 AD............
WTF
Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2006: the Greatest Kook: Honest John or Terry Allison of Montres Allison
Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2006
| Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, February 2006
China to have 800 missiles aimed at Taiwan in 2006
Army: No Plan To Reduce Troop Level Until At Least 2006
2006 PREDICTIONS
I predict a big nuclear barbecue for 2006 !
ARMAGEDDON: APRIL 2006-- ISRAEL PREPARES TO STRIKE IRAN
A Grab-bag of Truly Wondrous Prophecies gleaned from the WWW for 2006...............
|
|
|
