http://www.joelskousen.com
THREE FACES OF THE US NUCLEAR AGENDA--WHICH ONE IS REAL?
WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF
March 15, 2002
Copyright Joel M. Skousen
Partial Quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
[Excerpt] The Bush administration is giving out lots of mixed signals and some disinformation relative to its nuclear policy and potential nuclear threats. This deserves extensive analysis. I’ll begin with an article by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times, found at http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020313-90521688.htm. Blankley has compiled a surprisingly accurate picture of the ongoing deception, but misses the the main reason for the deception. [My comments in brackets.]
"Is it just coincidence that in the last few weeks, the nation's leading news outlets have reported leaked stories relating to nuclear weapons? First was the story of the shadow government, kept in rural bunkers against the contingency that Washington might be wiped out. Then came The Washington Post story of nuclear sensors being placed on I-95, with Delta Force-type teams training to intercept and defuse concealed nuclear devices. Next came Time magazine's cover story that our government feared (falsely, it turned out) that there was a nuclear bomb placed in New York City. Finally, last weekend, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times reported stories that the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review had been rewritten to include Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya as potential nuclear targets (as well as Pakistan in case of a coup) [and most significantly--which Blankley omits: Russia and China are listed--two nuclear powers rarely identified as potential enemies despite the evidence of ongoing hostile intentions]. That leaked story [terrorist nuclear weapons] included the finding that low-yield nuclear devices which produce less fall out were needed to destroy underground complexes. Each of these stories were promptly confirmed by our government, at varying levels of detail.
"Add this other fact. A journalist I know told me that he has been researching for the last six months a story for a major national magazine that focuses on how our government would go about searching for a dirty nuclear bomb in an urban area. For five months, the relevant government officials and technicians virtually stonewalled him. Then, in late January they were suddenly remarkably forthcoming with details, including some operational details which give the story more credibility and bite.
"While one can't know for sure, these developments are suggestive of a government-organized series of leaks intended to prepare the public for dramatic military activity. The timing of these probably authorized leaks also coincided with a lull in fighting in Afghanistan and the beginning of some domestic and much foreign criticism of the president's vigorous war plans.
"The latest leak of changed nuclear strategy, while it has drawn worried comments from Europe and Russia, also would appear to be a clever reapplication of the Cold War nuclear deterrent strategy, this time targeted on likely state sponsors of terrorism. Could it even be a possible coup motivator in Iraq?...Almost inevitably, we will start that war with no certainty that we have a viable alternative government to replace Saddam’s. We may be stuck with a hostile occupation and half-a-continent of furious Muslims....Even when successful, such an Iraqi war may possibly bring on the dreaded war of civilizations, with repercussions that cannot even be calculated....And yet, if there is even a 5 percent or 10 percent chance that Saddam will develop and transfer to terrorists a weapon of mass destruction that can be used to incinerate an American multitude, such a war would be morally mandatory for the United States."
"It essentially plays into Osama bin Laden's and al Qaeda's grand strategy of inducing America to over-react to September 11 and thereby radicalize and energize world-wide Islam. [Blankley may not realize that radicalizing the world of Islam is actually part of the real agenda of the US global powers who control President Bush. The ultimate objective is to foment a third world war in order to consolidate their vaunted NWO. If Osama bin Laden also holds to this radicalization of Islam objective, that only plays into the globalist scheme, but it does not drive it. In reality, almost everything we "know" about bin Laden comes from assumptions made by the US government, who are using this convenient whipping boy to justify Bush’s phony war on terrorism.] In fact, the terrorists are the lesser of the threats. Only advanced industrial countries are capable of producing nuclear devices. Terrorists are merely the eager delivery system. [Absolutely true! But watch how Blankley fails to carry this truth to its proper conclusion.] Our greatest strategic danger is those hostile countries that can produce and provide the nukes: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. (Add in Syria and Libya for advanced biological and chemical weapons.) [Why doesn’t Blankley include Russia and China here? None of these client states would have a nuclear program without them. He dropped Russia and China from the list of nations in his referral to the National Posture Review, and now he declines to mention them again, even though Russia and China are the main culprits. Blankley is, I believe, playing the apologist for the Bush administration, which continues to propagate the lie that Russia and China are our allies.] [End of quote.]
Blankley makes some very good points in the above article--especially in citing the obvious promotion by government leakers of the dirty bomb nuclear threat scenario. Recent news stories about Russia losing 40 suitcase bombs are also disinformation. These types of weapons require constant maintenance, which would be impossible for any terrorist group not directly supported by Russia to manage. However, the reason for all these phony threat warnings is not simply to justify the next stage in the war on terror (Iraq) and to keep up public support for a war losing its steam. It is to provide partial cover for the US government who knows a much bigger nuclear strike from Russia is coming later in the decade, but which doesn’t want to warn the public of the real threat--Russia and China. There is no independent terrorist threat without those two predator nations. Neither Iraq nor Iran, as client states of Russia, are free to use nuclear weapons without Russia’s consent. The same is true for North Korea, a client state of both Russia and China. If a small nuclear event happens in America, it would be because Russia allows it to happen, as a massive diversion prior to a WWIII, disguised as a terrorist event.
I don’t think this will be the case, however. The US doesn’t want the public warned about nuclear war until it actually happens--less they try to prepare to survive. The Russians don’t want to give any advance warning either. I think the only warning of a nuclear strike by Russia will be an EMP strike high in the atmosphere, destroying all electrical and communications pathways in the US. If that ever happens, and you haven’t prepared a fallout shelter, find any nearby basement area to hide in--as quickly as you can. An EMP strike may give you only about 15 minutes warning of a general attack.
Now let’s evaluate the many-sided position of the US relative to nuclear threats. The three contradicting faces of US policy are:
1). There is a nuclear threat, but it is only from small rogue terrorist states.
2) There is a remote strategic nuclear threat from Russia and China (a useful position for contingency planning purposes)--but don’t worry about it because they are our allies or, at worst, economic competitors.
3) (The hidden policy) There is a real threat of nuclear war launched by Russia and China, and the US must secretly prepare to fight that war (after absorbing a nuclear first strike) by keeping all its warheads in reserve.
Policy #1 is a cover that has been used to justify a small but ineffective ABM system, as well as numerous restrictions of American liberties. Policy #2 is a new face presented to protect the government against charges of negligence when nuclear war does come--they will go back and point to this statement on Nuclear Posture Review and say, "We warned Congress" (sort of). But the real US policy, from a strategic planning standpoint, is Policy #3. This policy is hidden because US global leaders actually want a third world war in order to force the world to join forces and give military power to the UN/NWO in order to defeat Russia. That can only happen, psychologically and militarily, if the US military is removed from the world defense equation by a pre-emptive nuclear strike on US military targets by Russia. This destruction of the US military is further assured by the continued restriction imposed on our military forces by our own government, demanding that US nuclear forces must absorb a nuclear first strike and not launch on warning. This was mandated by President Clinton in November 1997 (PDD-60), and maintained in force by George W. Bush to this day. Documentation of this presidential directive may be found at http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd.asp
This is also why the US continues to downplay the Russian threat--to make sure the US military remains vulnerable to this strike and to ensure the American public doesn’t demand a much larger and viable ABM system, or that we cut off aid and military technology to Russia and China. All US intelligence agencies have operated under a gag order since the early 70’s, restricting public awareness of the growing Russian threat and discouraging citizen preparations for a nuclear event. For instance, the American public has never been warned about the ongoing Russian nuclear missile buildup (SS-27), including massive underground fortified cities (in the Yamantau and Yazvinsky Mtns.) built to assure Russian military survival and continued armament production during an all-out nuclear war. Neither has the American public been warned to prepare nuclear shelters, despite massive government expenditures to shelter its top civilian and government officials. The leaking of information about bunkers for the Shadow Government was meant only to feed the public a reason for explaining why government officials would all survive the next nuclear war. I believe the Powers That Be have sufficient spies inside the Kremlin to be warned beforehand when the attack is coming. My current projection is that Russia’s most optimum opportunity will come during the mid-to-latter part of this decade, before we deploy our meager ABM system.
BUSH MOVES HIS PHONY WAR ON TERRORISM INTO STAGE TWO
Without an active target to keep the war on terrorism in the public eye, President Bush is claiming to move the war to another level: Stage Two. This stage reportedly consists of giving direct aid and military support to other nations which want to join the US in the war on terrorism and which supposedly have an internal terrorism threat. This new policy sounds like a sudden invention to justify Bush’s decision two weeks ago to give aid to the "former" Soviet state of Georgia, which has come under some criticism. I covered the reasons why Bush’s stated justifications regarding US aid to Georgia were false in a previous briefing. The intervention in Georgia has much more to do with supporting Russia’s war against Chechen rebels than it does with terrorism. This week the US rebuffed Russian plans to move into the Pankisi valley with Georgian troops in a joint Russia-Georgia security operation. The US said it would prefer to do a joint US-Georgian operation. This is crazy. Why spend US taxpayer dollars to support a Russian plot for control in both Chechnya and Georgia when Russia is offering to do it without the US? I suspect that the US agenda is to increase the extent of US intervention in as many countries as possible to ensure the greatest possible future backlash--a necessary psychological prelude to allow Russia and China et al the proper justification for attacking the West.
This week the Bush administration announced its intention to also give military aid and training to Yemen--another Communist ally on the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula, whose people are very anti-US. Yemen has harbored Communist terrorists for years. They, like Syria should be on the US "hit list." Can this nation be trusted to use the aid to fight terrorism, or is this another vehicle for the CIA’s covert support of future terrorists, harnessed to the global agenda? I wouldn’t be surprised if this much-vaunted Stage Two of the War on Terrorism could be used as an excuse to aid any "former" enemy. It is no wonder globalists have gloated so often over the wonders of using war to control world events. Some token opposition to this carte blanche warmongering of the Bush administration is beginning to form in Congress, but only by a small group of Democrats, probably playing a token role to pacify their radical left wing. The Democratic Party operates with almost total party discipline, so whenever we see a small faction make noises, we can assume it is for show, and is not intended to impede the current agenda of the principal Democratic leaders.
