Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Blog Is Back!


Dr. Rice is in Oslo today meeting with NATO officials, trying to raise support for the installation of Missile Defense Shield components in Eastern Europe, which has stirred the pot with Russia. It's almost comical, but here is a brief background on what is going on:

The USA is trying to build what is called a Missile Defense Shield. It claims this "shield" is to protect the US from "rogue states" like Iran and North Korea. They are now trying to expand the shield into Europe, by installing components on Russia's border.

Now, outside the pages of New York Times, nobody takes seriously the claim that this is a "shield". It is part of a first-strike capability which would make the US invincible and re-acheive the unstable position of nuclear primacy.

What that means, in brief, is this: In 1945 the US was the only power in the world to have the atomic bomb. It could safely attack any nation on the planet without consequence. Thats "nuclear primacy". That lasted until 1949, when the Soviet Union got the bomb. After a 10 year uncontrolled arms race; it was realized by both sides, after the Cuban Missile Crisis especially (in 1961), that they each side had enough nukes to completely destroy the world, and a kind of uneasy peace was established because of the existence of whats called "MAD" or "Mutually Assured Destruction." Meaning, if the USSR attacked the USA with everything it had, its likely the USA would either in mid-attack or after, have at least a couple nukes left somewhere to attack the USSR, and vice-versa. So, essentially, both sides were safe because any attack , from the US to Russia or vice versa, meant both sides are destroyed. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Also in 1969 both sides signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required nuclear powers to begin dismantling and eventually get rid of nukes altogether. But thats ignored.

Back to the present. The Missile Defense Shield, as explained in foreign policy, security and military journals; gives the USA nuclear primacy again, thats its raison d'etre if you will. Its been sold, however, as protection against Iran and NK. So for the first time today, a US official responded to the idea that it removes Russia's deterrent. Condi Rice said:

“The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it. The Russians have thousands of warheads. The idea that you can somehow stop the Soviet strategic nuclear deterrent with a few interceptors just doesn’t make sense.”

What everyone knows, is that she is lying. The Russians are afraid that a shield would remove what she called "the Soviet strategic nuclear deterrent", (soviet?). Meaning if we have a shield against Russian missiles, then there is nothing stopping the US from attacking Russia, since we can block their retaliation. As Dr. Rice says, how could TEN interceptors and a FEW radars stop THOUSANDS of warheads. It just doesn't make sense. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

This is from an article in Foreign Affairs, April of 2006, in an article called "The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy":

"...the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left."

And everyone knows it. So why should we care? So what if it scares Russia and China that the US is trying to become invincible and thus threaten them? Because they are responding. Both Russia and China are vastly increasing their missile stockpiles to overwhelm a US missile defense system. They are scattering their nuclear weapons all over the country, putting them on hair trigger alert. Russia has even begun a system where, at any time, day or night, year round, there are a good load of nuclear weapons being transported across the country on *highways*; because they believe constantly moving them is safer then leaving them in a permanent spot where US satellites can target them.

If we are in a war against terrorism, and are convinced that terrorists want to acquire nukes; is it safe to know Russia is transporting nuclear weapons on highways on a constant basis?

No. No it isnt