Tuesday, June 05, 2007

U.S. Nuclear Primacy and Bush-Putin, Clinton-Yeltsin Threats

Headlines: Bush flies into row over missile shield and Putin in nuclear threat against Europe.
Pat Buchanan blames both Bill Clinton and George Bush II for "losing Russia" after the dissolution of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity for peace.
How? By making military alliances with and putting bases on the soil of its nearest neighbors. Read
Justin Raimondo's series of articles about the various alleged western conspiracies against Russia.
Even Israel feels free to make quasi-military threats against Russia. According to a Jerusalem Post article in January of 2007: Voicing extreme concern over Russia's recent sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, senior diplomatic and defense officials warned Moscow Tuesday that the deal could have serious security implications that would even "get back to Russia."
Buchanan laments: Yet, on the eve of the G-8 summit, Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia will retarget missiles on NATO. We must, he said, counter Bush's decision to put anti-missile missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. Why are we doing this? The United States says the ABM system in Europe is to defend against an Iranian attack. But Tehran has no atom bomb and no ICBM. We appear to be headed for a second Cold War – and, if we are, responsibility will not fully rest with the Kremlin. For among those who have mismanaged the relationship are presidents Clinton and Bush II, the baby boomers who appear to have kicked away the fruits of a Cold War victory won by their Greatest Generation predecessors.

Don't forget that former Russian President Boris Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton also exchanged threats during and after the U.S. bombing of Serbia over Kosovo. During the bombings we had scary threats from Russians.

“I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans: Don't push us toward military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war.'' Russian President Boris Yeltsin, April 6, 1999

"In the event that NATO and America start a ground operation in Yugoslavia, they will face a second Vietnam, I do not want to forecast what is going to start then. I cannot rule out a third world war.'' Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, April 17, 1999

Just let Clinton, a little bit, accidentally, send a missile. We will answer immediately. Such impudence! To unleash a war on a sovereign state. Without Security Council. Without United Nations. It could only be possible in a time of barbarism. Boris Yeltsin, May 7, 1999

The world has never in this decade been so close as now to the brink of nuclear war. Former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, May 27, 1999

Wisely, Clinton stopped bombing Serbia a few days later and never did send in ground troops. However, in December of that year, after Clinton criticized Russia's ruthless bombing of Chechnya, Yeltsin replied: Yesterday, Clinton permitted himself to put pressure on Russia. It seems he has for a minute, for a second, for half a minute, forgotten that Russia has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons. He has forgotten about that.

During a press conference that same day Clinton replied, with a laugh: I haven't forgotten that. You know, I didn't think he'd forgotten America was a great power when he disagreed with what I did in Kosovo.

And thus our destinys remain under the control of angry Alpha Males jockeying for power who have the ability to launch massive attacks on each others military and population centers that will kill hundreds of millions of people on the first day of war.

As if Alpha Male irrationality isn't enough of a problem, there remains the debate over whether the U.S. military is planning to obtain nuclear primacy with a first strike against Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons. Putin's fear in opposing the "missile shield." A whole list of reasons the Russians and Chinese should be frightened is presented in the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs. See "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press.

Check out the article where the authors detail many reasons to support their point that ...the age of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

In September of 2006 Foreign Affairs published a response questioning their conclusions. If you haven't heard of "U.S. nuclear primacy," blame a media controlled by pro-war corporations and special interests, and a peace movement in denial about the imperialist intentions of both the Democrats and Republicans. Hillary Clinton might get elected and first strike China and Russia without ever reading the phrase! Just like she never read the report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

And people wonder why I want to get rid of large nation states A.S.A.P.! See Secession.Net and MiddleburyInstitute.Org

No comments: