There Will Be War
A short time from now, in a Galaxy very near to you!
From the Federalist Patriot:
[T]he Bush administration is reportedly poised to ask Congress to fund the development of ‘orbital battle stations,’ each of which will be able to shoot down ballistic missiles with 40 or 50 infra-red guided projectiles the size of a loaf of bread. Such a system is necessary not just to defend satellites, but millions of people... Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel, which could be armed with chemical or biological weapons even if Iran is still incapable of building a nuclear warhead. The Arrow missile, while better than nothing, is not as effective as a boost-phase defense that would shoot down missiles as they are launched from an aggressor state. Moreover, the missile threat is growing, not going away. In 1972, eight countries had long-range ballistic missiles. Today, 20 countries do. If any clarification were necessary, the recent war in Lebanon showcased the missile as the ‘equalizer’ for rogue states and their terrorist proxies. And while ABM systems may be of limited use against short-range missiles, it is the long-range missiles that pose a possible existential threat. In this context, we hope administration opponents in Congress will abandon their anachronistic opposition to space-based defense systems. The option of ‘demilitarizing’ space does not exist. The choice is between leaving the populations of free nations exposed to missile attack, or taking advantage of the best technologies available to meet that threat.
Jerusalem Post
Americans have been deluding themselves about nuclear security since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The old Soviet arsenal was mostly in Russian hands and continued to point at American cities, and now Comrad Putin and his dancing teeth have a brand new, next generation nuclear stockpile which is still aimed at the United States! Furthermore, thanks to Bill Clinton, Loral Aerospace has taught the Chinese how to successfully launch and control their ICBM`s, making it possible for them to hit the United States. Where are Chinese weapons pointed? Hint; not Burma. The Chinese have also been developing things to blind and/or destroy American satellites; why would they need such a tool if they aren`t considering war with us?
Then you have the second stringers such as North Korea and Iran who could, in time and with enough money, turn their long-range missiles into true ICBM`s. I have theorized for some time that China is behind North Korea`s nuclear and rocketry programs, and that something as bad as a nuclear strike on the United States by that crazy Kim Jong-mentally Il would not break any Chinese hearts. Right now there is little we could do if missiles were fired at us from anywhere, provided we didn`t catch them at first launch (and it`s doubtful we would.) We need something better.
I wonder when we last updated our own nuclear arsenal? Are our weapons still in fighting trim? We have been moving away from nuclear capabilities in favor of electronics for 15 years, and I wonder if we can still count on our nuclear weapons in a crunch (or bang). Given the increasing belligerence of Russia, and the smiling Chinese duplicitious efforts, we need those weapons every bit as much as we did in 1975.
Our satellite systems, GPS tracking, computers, etc. are all vulnerable in certain ways, and the Chinese have been working doggedly to find those weaknesses. The Chinese regularly hack our computers, for instance. Now they are developing the satellite doohickey; what would we do if we lost our satellite system in a preemptive strike? We couldn`t coordinate our forces. This is perilous, to put it mildly, and I don`t think it is ever a good idea to take capabilities by an enemy lightly-and they are our enemies. We want to believe in their friendship, but both the Russians and Chinese have neither behaved as friends nor have their upper echelon made statements consistent with anything other than an adversarial role. It doesn`t mean we can`t coexist peaceably, but we had better take them-and their capabilities-seriously.
We are entering a new Cold War, at a time when we are engaged in a clash of civilizations. The next 50 years are going to be the most dangerous and critical time this Republic has ever faced. I`m not sure we are up for the challenge.
We need these battlestations in space. We need to take the high ground.
From the Federalist Patriot:
[T]he Bush administration is reportedly poised to ask Congress to fund the development of ‘orbital battle stations,’ each of which will be able to shoot down ballistic missiles with 40 or 50 infra-red guided projectiles the size of a loaf of bread. Such a system is necessary not just to defend satellites, but millions of people... Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel, which could be armed with chemical or biological weapons even if Iran is still incapable of building a nuclear warhead. The Arrow missile, while better than nothing, is not as effective as a boost-phase defense that would shoot down missiles as they are launched from an aggressor state. Moreover, the missile threat is growing, not going away. In 1972, eight countries had long-range ballistic missiles. Today, 20 countries do. If any clarification were necessary, the recent war in Lebanon showcased the missile as the ‘equalizer’ for rogue states and their terrorist proxies. And while ABM systems may be of limited use against short-range missiles, it is the long-range missiles that pose a possible existential threat. In this context, we hope administration opponents in Congress will abandon their anachronistic opposition to space-based defense systems. The option of ‘demilitarizing’ space does not exist. The choice is between leaving the populations of free nations exposed to missile attack, or taking advantage of the best technologies available to meet that threat.
Jerusalem Post
Americans have been deluding themselves about nuclear security since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The old Soviet arsenal was mostly in Russian hands and continued to point at American cities, and now Comrad Putin and his dancing teeth have a brand new, next generation nuclear stockpile which is still aimed at the United States! Furthermore, thanks to Bill Clinton, Loral Aerospace has taught the Chinese how to successfully launch and control their ICBM`s, making it possible for them to hit the United States. Where are Chinese weapons pointed? Hint; not Burma. The Chinese have also been developing things to blind and/or destroy American satellites; why would they need such a tool if they aren`t considering war with us?
Then you have the second stringers such as North Korea and Iran who could, in time and with enough money, turn their long-range missiles into true ICBM`s. I have theorized for some time that China is behind North Korea`s nuclear and rocketry programs, and that something as bad as a nuclear strike on the United States by that crazy Kim Jong-mentally Il would not break any Chinese hearts. Right now there is little we could do if missiles were fired at us from anywhere, provided we didn`t catch them at first launch (and it`s doubtful we would.) We need something better.
I wonder when we last updated our own nuclear arsenal? Are our weapons still in fighting trim? We have been moving away from nuclear capabilities in favor of electronics for 15 years, and I wonder if we can still count on our nuclear weapons in a crunch (or bang). Given the increasing belligerence of Russia, and the smiling Chinese duplicitious efforts, we need those weapons every bit as much as we did in 1975.
Our satellite systems, GPS tracking, computers, etc. are all vulnerable in certain ways, and the Chinese have been working doggedly to find those weaknesses. The Chinese regularly hack our computers, for instance. Now they are developing the satellite doohickey; what would we do if we lost our satellite system in a preemptive strike? We couldn`t coordinate our forces. This is perilous, to put it mildly, and I don`t think it is ever a good idea to take capabilities by an enemy lightly-and they are our enemies. We want to believe in their friendship, but both the Russians and Chinese have neither behaved as friends nor have their upper echelon made statements consistent with anything other than an adversarial role. It doesn`t mean we can`t coexist peaceably, but we had better take them-and their capabilities-seriously.
We are entering a new Cold War, at a time when we are engaged in a clash of civilizations. The next 50 years are going to be the most dangerous and critical time this Republic has ever faced. I`m not sure we are up for the challenge.
We need these battlestations in space. We need to take the high ground.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:43 AM
2 Comments:
The Chinese developments have blown apart this entire
strategic framework associated with current U.S. defense policy,
and with so-called "non-proliferation." And the point that we, in
the LaRouche movement make, is that what Cheney and company have
done is to make this idea about "controlling" the spread of
nuclear arsenals meaningless and obsolete in strategic practice.
This is not about one or another "perfect weapons systems," or
some specific technology leaking out. The whole
"non-proliferation" framework is gone -- and Cheney, Bush, and
Tony Blair killed it.
We have come to the point where U.S. systems are vulnerable
to the kind of attacks that LaRouche warned would be coming when
he made his proposals in the late 1970s and early 1980s on laser
weapons that led to the SDI adopted by President Ronald Reagan.
These were the issues that LaRouche discussed in the back channel
discussion between Washington and Moscow.
What we're looking at in the China case, is not only a
rocket guided by a laser, but a general approach of developing a
laser type SDI.
The problem on the Moscow side is that the Soviets in 1983
rejected the SDI in favor of the non-proliferation framework of
the 1960s, and the Russians today are still clinging to that idea
-- which is gone.
Non-proliferation doesn't work because Cheney and Co. won't
let it work, with their constant threats of military action, and
danger of generalized war.
That's our problem. The capabilities of lasers, space-based
systems, and the kind of things we were talking about in the SDI
are now feasible. And there is no "perfect weapons system" that
is not vulnerable to an SDI approach that will punch a hole in
it. What we're talking about is not just a "better weapon" but a
whole different approach. This has shattering implications for
U.S. scientific, economic, and military policy
You cannot have a "non-profileration" policy with the kind
of threats to the planet made by the Cheney-Bush-Blair policies.
- * * * * -
Thanks, Fernly;
The state of the art is making many of our old proceedures obsolete.
Tim Birdnow
Post a Comment
<< Home