Episode III The Revenge of the Scythians
(Click the Header)
(The Scythians lived along the north shore of the Black Sea, and were the forefathers of the Russians)
This from our good ``friends`` Puttinoccio and Russia:
Pravda.RU:Diplomatic:More in detail
Russia threatens retaliatory steps if any country deploys weapons in space
13:09 2005-06-02
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Thursday threatened retaliatory steps if any country deploys weapons in space, Russian news agencies.
"Russia's position on this question has not changed for decades: We are categorically against the militarization of space," Ivanov said, according to the Interfax news agency.
"If some state begins to realize such plans, then we doubtless will take adequate retaliatory measures," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying at the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The U.S. administration currently is reviewing the U.S. space policy doctrine. Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must be protected.
In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space.
But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.
Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for those of you who haven`t already figured it out, this threat is aimed entirely at the United States. We have been talking about developing new space weapons systems, and the Russians are turning purple with apoplexy. The Outer Space Treaty with the old Soviet Union banned any kind of weapons in space, but, much like the old ABM treaty, the country we had the treaty with no longer exists. The Russians, ever paranoid, think every action by the United States is a provocation aimed directly at them, and so they threaten us with retaliation should we deploy any space-based systems.
But what is really going on here? First off, let me point out that during the early `90`s the Russians had developed satellite killers which could knock our communications and intelligence systems out. We have grown increasingly dependent on satellite based systems for both military and civilian operations. Anyone who followed the Iraq War saw first hand the power of satellite-based technology. We rely on satellites almost exclusively for communications. Our missiles and other military equipment use GPS data for guidance and control. Should we lose our satellites, we will lose our military capabilities, plus most civilian communications. We would be deaf, dumb, and blind. The Russians understand this; that is the whole reason they developed satellite killers! This is their failsafe; they can stop our military if they desire. Naturally, Bill Clinton never bothered to develop comparable systems for the United States.
The Chinese are also pressing hard on space-based systems, but are still far behind in developing them. However, should the Russians take out our satellite systems the Chinese would be well positioned to win any conflict since they are working with 1960`s style independent systems (while still having the benefits of modern computer and rocket technology thanks to Clinton, Loral Aerospace,Ron Brown, and Hazel O`Leary.)We would probably lose a war where our space systems were taken out. The Russians fully understand this.
Part of what the U.S. is proposing is developing satellite-killing technology ourselves, along with defensive weaponry to protect our own satellite systems. This would make us invulnerable to Russian aggression, and would guarantee proper command and control of our forces. Furthermore, the Russians simply cannot afford to put new space based weapons in orbit (at least, nothing more than I`m sure they already have) while we can, which means if we need to hit any target on Earth we don`t have the long, dangerous flight time but can strike in minutes anywhere. We will leave their nuclear capabilities in the dust.
That was precisely why Gorbachev resisted Reagan`s S.D.I. program so vehemently; the Soviets could not afford to put a similar system in place, and they knew it. After the Rekjavik Summit, when Reagan refused to negotiate with Star Wars, Gorbachev was quoted as saying, ``we are finished``; he knew that the Soviets would be unable to compete. (The Russians had developed an anti-ballistic missile system to protect Moscow, which was permissible under the ABM, but we never did anything similar- to show the Soviets our goodwill.) Any ABM system means that 1960`s era Soviet-built ICBM`s are worthless, and the Russians are unwilling to watch their terror weapons become obsolete. Now they see their hole card-satellite killers-becoming obsolete as well.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with what we are doing, I have to admit this is dangerous. The Russians are grumbling about their past Soviet glories, and would love to settle the score with the United States. China wants to declaw the ``paper tiger``, and radical Islam vows the destruction of the ``great Satan``. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the old Soviet nuclear material factories remained in production (Clinton funded these plants to remain in production so that the nuclear scientists and technicians would not go to work for terrorists; these plants continued to put out weapons grade material for the Russian military, and now the Russians have upgraded, modern plants pumping out Plutonium.) The Russians were in bed with Saddam, have been dealing with Iran, and making arms sales to Syria. What else have they been trafficking in?
I hope and pray President Bush knows who he is dealing with!
(The Scythians lived along the north shore of the Black Sea, and were the forefathers of the Russians)
This from our good ``friends`` Puttinoccio and Russia:
Pravda.RU:Diplomatic:More in detail
Russia threatens retaliatory steps if any country deploys weapons in space
13:09 2005-06-02
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Thursday threatened retaliatory steps if any country deploys weapons in space, Russian news agencies.
"Russia's position on this question has not changed for decades: We are categorically against the militarization of space," Ivanov said, according to the Interfax news agency.
"If some state begins to realize such plans, then we doubtless will take adequate retaliatory measures," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying at the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The U.S. administration currently is reviewing the U.S. space policy doctrine. Last month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that the policy review was not considering the weaponization of space. But he said new threats to U.S. satellites have emerged in the years since the U.S. space doctrine was last reviewed in 1996, and those satellites must be protected.
In 2002, after the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, China and Russia submitted a proposal for a new international treaty to ban weapons in outer space.
But the United States has said it sees no need for any new space arms control agreements. It is party to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits stationing weapons of mass destruction in space.
Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for those of you who haven`t already figured it out, this threat is aimed entirely at the United States. We have been talking about developing new space weapons systems, and the Russians are turning purple with apoplexy. The Outer Space Treaty with the old Soviet Union banned any kind of weapons in space, but, much like the old ABM treaty, the country we had the treaty with no longer exists. The Russians, ever paranoid, think every action by the United States is a provocation aimed directly at them, and so they threaten us with retaliation should we deploy any space-based systems.
But what is really going on here? First off, let me point out that during the early `90`s the Russians had developed satellite killers which could knock our communications and intelligence systems out. We have grown increasingly dependent on satellite based systems for both military and civilian operations. Anyone who followed the Iraq War saw first hand the power of satellite-based technology. We rely on satellites almost exclusively for communications. Our missiles and other military equipment use GPS data for guidance and control. Should we lose our satellites, we will lose our military capabilities, plus most civilian communications. We would be deaf, dumb, and blind. The Russians understand this; that is the whole reason they developed satellite killers! This is their failsafe; they can stop our military if they desire. Naturally, Bill Clinton never bothered to develop comparable systems for the United States.
The Chinese are also pressing hard on space-based systems, but are still far behind in developing them. However, should the Russians take out our satellite systems the Chinese would be well positioned to win any conflict since they are working with 1960`s style independent systems (while still having the benefits of modern computer and rocket technology thanks to Clinton, Loral Aerospace,Ron Brown, and Hazel O`Leary.)We would probably lose a war where our space systems were taken out. The Russians fully understand this.
Part of what the U.S. is proposing is developing satellite-killing technology ourselves, along with defensive weaponry to protect our own satellite systems. This would make us invulnerable to Russian aggression, and would guarantee proper command and control of our forces. Furthermore, the Russians simply cannot afford to put new space based weapons in orbit (at least, nothing more than I`m sure they already have) while we can, which means if we need to hit any target on Earth we don`t have the long, dangerous flight time but can strike in minutes anywhere. We will leave their nuclear capabilities in the dust.
That was precisely why Gorbachev resisted Reagan`s S.D.I. program so vehemently; the Soviets could not afford to put a similar system in place, and they knew it. After the Rekjavik Summit, when Reagan refused to negotiate with Star Wars, Gorbachev was quoted as saying, ``we are finished``; he knew that the Soviets would be unable to compete. (The Russians had developed an anti-ballistic missile system to protect Moscow, which was permissible under the ABM, but we never did anything similar- to show the Soviets our goodwill.) Any ABM system means that 1960`s era Soviet-built ICBM`s are worthless, and the Russians are unwilling to watch their terror weapons become obsolete. Now they see their hole card-satellite killers-becoming obsolete as well.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with what we are doing, I have to admit this is dangerous. The Russians are grumbling about their past Soviet glories, and would love to settle the score with the United States. China wants to declaw the ``paper tiger``, and radical Islam vows the destruction of the ``great Satan``. Thanks to Bill Clinton, the old Soviet nuclear material factories remained in production (Clinton funded these plants to remain in production so that the nuclear scientists and technicians would not go to work for terrorists; these plants continued to put out weapons grade material for the Russian military, and now the Russians have upgraded, modern plants pumping out Plutonium.) The Russians were in bed with Saddam, have been dealing with Iran, and making arms sales to Syria. What else have they been trafficking in?
I hope and pray President Bush knows who he is dealing with!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 8:37 AM
3 Comments:
Tim!! This is a simply stunning article with astounding analysis and information. You must write an article for the American Thinker along these lines!
You are so right. The Russians know that this is their one chance to be able to win against the US. They hope to be able to intimidate us with their belligerent bluster (what else is new? -- this is so familiar isn't it? Khrushchev pounding the table at the UN with his shoe? -- oy). Hopefully we have an administration which is not falling for this saber-rattling and jungle chest-thumping by the toothless gorillas of the former Soviet state -- and will just go ahead as Reagan did, with our own systems. The problem comes when you get an administration in power who goes for the old canard about "The only reason they are belligerent is because we are threatening them and forcing them to be mean -- the old -- they are depraved on account of they're deprived excuse -- this was essentially the idea that prevailed in left-wing and democrat circles during the years of the Soviet Union. Similarly today we have idiots telling us that if we would just be kinder and treat the Koran with kid gloves (literally) that the Islamofascists would get over their hatred of us and we would all sing kumbaya together as the sun sets over the horizon. No -- the Russians hope to bluster us into backing down so they can develop their own systems.
The other thing to be worried about here is the EMP bomb - I hope I have that right -- the idea is to explode a missile launched from a ship at sea which explodes in the atmosphere over the United States and fries all of our electrical systems completely.
Everything would grind to a halt. Now there's something we must develop a defense against -- this is potentially even more devastating than even nuclear attack. Oy, once you start thinking about these things you wonder how you sleep at night, and if I feel that way, imagine how those who are more in the know feel? Or at least, I HOPE that people are in the know and worrying about these things, because worry is becoming my middle name. It's a Ukrainian thing, anyhow!!
Hello, Alex, and welcome to Birdblog!
First off, let me start by saying that the United States has promised to abide by the Outer Space Treaty and not place any Weapons of Mass Destruction in orbit, and there is no reason for Russian saber-rattling over this since we don`t have adequate launch vehicles at the moment to place WMD`s in position anyway. . What we are trying to do is defend our satellites, and Russia has no reason to oppose this from a self-defense point of view. Russia can only worry about this if they want the ability to knock out our systems-and that means they are positioning themselves for first-strike capabilities. My question for you is, what types of weapons does Russia have in orbit? Russia definitely has satellite killers.
Why don`t you imagine for a second that the true reason for America is self-defense? Maybe we don`t like having our satellites destroyed as a precurser to a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
I`m sorry, Alex, but I`ve been taking Putin at his word when he said: "First and foremost, it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Putin was an old KGB man, and his administration has been characterized by increasing despotism. Furthermore, I`ve been reading the hysterical ravings in Pravda. I seem to remember from my Russian studies in my youth that Pravda means ``official truth`` and not merely truth. Pravda has been full of insanely anti-American rhetoric-go here for a small taste.
If you have been on the internet, you should be able to see the enormous errors and fallacies in that particular article. It sounded like something from MoveOn.Ogre or an Al Gore speech. Pravda calls our President a dictator (if he was a dictator, why hasn`t he silenced his critics?) and accused America of trying to conquer the World. (If we were bent on conquest, why haven`t we taken over in Pakistan? Why haven`t we finished off Syria? We could easily march into the Sudan under a U.N. flag, and no-one could stop us.)
We were minding our own business on September 11, 2001 when terrorists murdered 3000 of our people. We have responded in the only practical way-by going after the State sponsors of these cowardly dogs who hide behind women and children. That is the only way to win this, and your president Putin has made similar moves in Chechnya.
If Russia merely desires to protect itself, why is it selling medium-range missiles to Syria? Why was it selling military hardware to Saddam Hussein before the war? Why has it been blocking our efforts in Iran? These are all state sponsors of terrorism. Where do you think the Chechen rebels have been getting their weapons, their money, their training? If these moves are for Russia`s defense, they are very poorly thought out.
The reality is, of course, they are covert moves against America. Putin knows we may need to go into Syria; we have satellite photos of large trucks leaving Iraq for Syria before our invasion of Iraq. Syria is even now sheltering the ``insurgents`` who have been coming into Iraq and attacking American troops. Putin warned us himself that Russian intelligence said that Saddam Hussein had all kinds of nasty things-and that he was planning a pre-emptive strike against us. Either Putin was lying to us, or he knows these nasty things went into Syria. Why, then, is he arming country which hosts just about every terrorist organization in the Middle East? Because he wants the Syrians to HURT us, that`s why! Either he has something to hide in Syria, or he is knifing us in the back. Either way, it destroys your theory that Russia is merely defending itself. You have been reading too much Pravda, or the New York Times.
I greatly admire the Russian People; they have held their heads high despite some of the worst circumstances. The problem, Alex, is that Russia has never had the rule of law, but has always been ruled by force of arms. In America, the government is restricted by law and custom. We have our Constitution, or Anglo-American heritage of freedom, our free practice of Religious Faith. We have freedom of speech; Michael Moore can make up vile lies about the President and he doesn`t have to worry about secret police coming for him. I can write this blog without the slightest fear for my person-even when Bill Clinton was in office. We can legally rally for or against something and not worry about the police arresting us. Recently, we had the Minuteman project in which ordinary citizens patrolled the border with Mexico to stop illegal aliens from coming into the country. The government opposed this, but they could not stop it. These are all examples of the rule of law, and of the freedom we enjoy here in America.
America has always been about doing what we think is the right thing. This stems from the founding of America on Judeo-Christian principles. America was founded by religious groups seeking freedom of worship. These people took their faith seriously, and charity and duty to our fellow man are at the heart of Judaism and Christianity. Most of the rest of the world doesn`t understand that when America says they are going to do something because it is the right thing to do, Americans generally mean exactly that. Europe and the Arab world assume we have ulterior motives; that we really are trying to gain some kind of advantage. If you believe that, you know nothing about America. We have been fighting the war to put an end to the cycle of violence and hatred in the middle-east. This war is not about oil, or American dominance, or empire. It is about our national defense-and about helping the downtrodden who suffer at the hands of the terrorist and violent.
Unfortunately, Russia has never known these things. First you had the Golden Horde, then the Dukes of Moscow, then the Tsars, then the Bolsheviks. You have never had any tradition of freedom. Tell me this-isn`t organized crime rampant in Russia? How have you fought it? These go hand in hand. The criminals help against government corruption, and the government against crime. You have this problem because you can`t come to a consensus, you can`t agree on how things should run. You simply don`t have the experience with a majority agreeing to respect each-other`s opinions and talk, not fight. When Putin came into power, he realized he had to repress his opponents, or they would thwart his plans and efforts. If he gets kicked out the next guys will do likewise. In America, Michael Moore can call Bush a liar, criminal, and evil man and not get arrested. Can the same be said in Russia?
THAT is why we have to worry, Alex. A nation which maintains order by force of arms has to have an enemy to explain WHY repression is necessary. I see that in Putin, I see that when reading Pravda. I see that by the way Russia has acted internationally. Things can change; Russia is not necessarily an enemy, and could be a great friend of America-and we could be a great friend of Russia. I am just very, very concerned with what I see.
Thanks for visiting my blog! I would love to hear from you again! Perhaps we can discuss this at greater length, if you would like (provided it stays in English, my Russian is VERY out of practice!)
Spaseba E Dosvedanya!
Tim Birdnow
Alex,
The Kremlin is guilty of the liquidation of 100 million in the last century and Putin continues to deny this.
I honestly believe Putin is a GOOD PERSON but what a horrible position to take when the Kremlin goes about resurrecting Stalin and such.
The USA is not guilty of such genocide (and please don't dredge up that nonsense about the American Indians) and in fact our participation in war has been to spread democracy. We conquered Germany and it is now a good democratic country. We conquered Japan and it is now a good democratic country.
The Kremlin has not spread democracy - only tyrrany and death at the point of the AK47 and it has sought to subjugate countries and not free them.
Now, we will secure outer space so that the horrors of Yalta are never repeated.
Post a Comment
<< Home