Re: [CTRL] Anyone know this E.O.???
-Caveat Lector- At 07:46 AM 12-28-1999 -0600, Jamie wrote: A friend was telling me about it and he thinks it was signed in Dec of one of the last couple of years. Within the E.O. it says that our nuclear missiles will not be on alert and we will absorb the first hit. And supposedly putting nuclear missiles on alert is not a short process Anyone familiar with this E.O.? Just curious. From: Edward Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 Subject: [CTRL] A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart Joel M. Skousen March 25, 1999 In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning." Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence." Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background. The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of Clinton's demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America's nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma. Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn't comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn't be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads. According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union." Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing toward the relaxation of Western vigilance and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders, and the American people. Almost everyone is buying it -- even most conservatives who should know better. However, the most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called "collapse" was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states. But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear strike. Contrast this with the Clinton administration's response. Incredibly, while still paying lip service to nuclear deterrence, Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on March 31, 1998, and bragged about the litany of unilateral disarmament this administration has forced upon the U.S. military: Warner noted the "success" the Clinton administration has had in recent years, which has: Eliminated our entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles). Removed all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases. Removed our strategic bombers from alert. Stood down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I. Terminated the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs. Terminated the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile. In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included: Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers. Canceling the entire small ICBM program. Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (submarine-launched missile) warheads. Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles. Stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest MIRV-warhead ICBM). "As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent," Warner enthused. All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the Russians. The Clinton administration would counter this charge by citing the "successful" dismantling of 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, and the
Re: [CTRL] Anyone know this E.O.???
-Caveat Lector- Thank You! Jamie -Original Message- From: Bill Kingsbury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Anyone know this E.O.??? -Caveat Lector- At 07:46 AM 12-28-1999 -0600, Jamie wrote: A friend was telling me about it and he thinks it was signed in Dec of one of the last couple of years. Within the E.O. it says that our nuclear missiles will not be on alert and we will absorb the first hit. And supposedly putting nuclear missiles on alert is not a short process Anyone familiar with this E.O.? Just curious. From: Edward Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 Subject: [CTRL] A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart A Nuclear Knife Aimed at America's Heart Joel M. Skousen March 25, 1999 In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning." Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence." Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background. The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of Clinton's demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America's nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma. Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn't comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn't be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads. According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December 1997 issue), "the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union." Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing toward the relaxation of Western vigilance and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders, and the American people. Almost everyone is buying it -- even most conservatives who should know better. However, the most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called "collapse" was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states. But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear strike. Contrast this with the Clinton administration's response. Incredibly, while still paying lip service to nuclear deterrence, Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on March 31, 1998, and bragged about the litany of unilateral disarmament this administration has forced upon the U.S. military: Warner noted the "success" the Clinton administration has had in recent years, which has: Eliminated our entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles). Removed all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases. Removed our strategic bombers from alert. Stood down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I. Terminated the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs. Terminated the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile. In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included: Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers. Canceling the entire small ICBM program. Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (submarine-launched missile) warheads. Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles. Stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest MIRV-warhead ICBM). "As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 p
