MISSILE DEFENCE
US Clash With Russia |
comment by Larry Ross |
July 25, 2007 |
|
As stated in other articles, stationing US missile defence systems on Russian borders, within old USSR satellite states, is a prescription for a new cold war that can quickly heat up and become World War III. |
Putin's War-whoop: The impending clash with Russia |
by Mike Whitney |
June 22, 2007 |
|
What is a "unipolar" world? |
US Starts New Arms Race in Europe |
by Larry Ross |
April 18, 2007 |
|
Placing US anti-missile defence systems in European countries is a multi-message to Russia, and another indication that the US is restarting the international arms race and a new cold war. If the US launches a pre-emptive nuclear war on Iran, as much expert testimony indicates, and it looks like it may go global, they may implement global pre-emptive nuclear strikes against some other nuclear weapon states. Bush, as Commander In Chief of US military forces, has the legal right (made law by Congress) to launch pre-emptive nuclear war. He may also introduce nuclear weapons into conventional weapon wars. |
The Missile-Defense Flap |
by Vladimir Belous |
April 11, 2007 |
|
... It all sounds like the speech made by Colin Powell during his tenure as U.S. Secretary of State at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. In it, he argued Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the world community was obliged to stop their proliferation and use. The upshot of all that is well known: Such weapons were never found anywhere in Mesopotamia. |
Germany Wants US Missile Defence For Europe |
by Larry Ross |
April 18, 2007 |
|
Here is a UPI article that shows German enthusiasm for a US missile defence system. As might be expected, the German conservatives welcome a new arms race and cold war in Europe. By embracing Bush's and the media lies about an alleged threat from Iran, they have the flimsy excuse. In the short term they may hope for new opportunities for profits. In the long run it can lead to crippling wars, if not nuclear war. I would think that the lessons of history and the potential for far greater wars than World War II, would have taught the Germans some useful lessons. Apparently not. |
Iran Helps US Missile Shield |
by Stefan Nicola |
April 11, 2007 |
|
Iran's latest claim that it is capable of enriching uranium on an industrial level has encouraged proponents of U.S. plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe, but Moscow is still not amused. After Tehran's nuclear threats, members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives even said more countries in Europe should think about participating in the U.S. anti-missile system. |
Gorbachev Says US Missile Defence For Dominating Europe |
April 18, 2007 |
||
This article by Gorbachev is the most comprehensive article on the subject of US attempts to sell missile defence to European countries. I am amazed that they seem to be buying this expensive and dangerous fraud. It means less independence for Europe, huge expenditure, more US domination and agenda, and an increase in the likelihood of crippling wars. How could Europeans accept American lies and propaganda and do such a self-destructive act as install missile defence systems? It makes no sense particularly after they have had the example of US lying to justify their illegal war on Iraq with over 600,000 people killed |
U.S. seeks control of Europe through missile shield - Gorbachev |
from RIA Novosti |
April 12, 2007 |
|
KALININGRAD, April 12 (RIA Novosti) - Deployment of U.S. missile-defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic is an attempt by the U.S. to control Europe, the former Soviet president said Thursday. "It is all about influence and domination in Europe," Mikhail Gorbachev said. "I believe it is wrong that America did not even bother to consult its NATO allies." |
US Starts New European Cold War With Russia |
April 18, 2007 |
||
Here is the fourth authoritative article showing how the US is starting a new cold war in Europe by installing missile defence systems in European nations. |
U.S. Missile Deals Bypass, and Annoy, European Union |
April 13, 2007 |
||
Much of Europe is arguing over a Washington proposal to plant in Poland fewer than a dozen antimissile missiles that might not work, to guard against an Iranian threat that may not exist. |
by WILLIAM
J. BROAD, NYT
|
February 7, 2005
|
||||
The officials say the program
could help shrink the arsenal and the high cost of its maintenance. But
critics say it could needlessly resuscitate the complex of factories and
laboratories that make nuclear weapons and could possibly ignite a new
arms race. So far, the quiet effort involves only $9 million for warhead designers at the nation's three nuclear weapon laboratories, Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia. Federal bomb experts at these heavily guarded facilities are now scrutinizing secret arms data gathered over a half century for clues about how to achieve the new reliability goals. "These are big decisions," Mr. Norris said. "They could backfire and come back to haunt us." |
Comment
by Larry Ross
|
February 6,
2005
|
||||
. . . . In this deadly nuclear gamesmanship, would the present or a future US administration ever decide to make a surprise massive first nuclear strike against Russia, China or some other state, taking a calculated risk that they can destroy the retaliatory power of their chosen enemy? |
by
Stan Crock
|
February
4, 2005
|
||||
Unreliability is just one reason why funding
is being cut. |
by
Peter Baker
|
January 23, 2005
|
||||
They were stunned when Bush leaned across
a table in a private meeting and lectured Prime Minister Paul Martin
about opposing the U.S. missile defense system. And they were later
taken aback by a speech filled with what they considered the same "old
Bush" foreign policy pronouncements that opened the divide with
the allies in the first place. |
by
Brad
Knickerbocker
|
January 6, 2005
|
||||
In an age when weapons of mass destruction
can be slipped into the United States in a cargo container or even a
suitcase, is Ronald Reagan's 1983 dream of building an umbrella against
long-range enemy missiles passé? Or is it a necessary screen
against the possibility of North Korea or another rogue state tossing
a nuclear-tipped rocket our way? |
|||||
by
Ivan Eland
|
December
21, 2004
|
||||
The most recent among many testing glitches
of the Bush administration missile defense program should remind us
that this exorbitant and heavily politicized effort should be scrapped.
Until September 11, in the eyes of conservatives, the litmus test for
patriotism was support for missile defense. Now they have moved on to
view backing for the troubled Iraq War as the badge of armchair courage.
Yet the 9/11 attacks demonstrated that the missile defense program did
not address the most severe threats facing the United States. |
THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed |
by
Ivan Eland
|
Released
October, 2004
|
|||
Most
Americans dont think of their government as an empire, but in
fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas
territories since the turn of the twentieth century. Now, through political
intimidation and over 700 military bases worldwide, the U.S. holds sway
over an area that dwarfs the great empires of world history. |
peaceinspace.org/
November 19, 2004
|
||||
Dear Mr. Martin: |
Petition
from peaceinspace.org/ November
20, 2004
|
|||||
Dear Mr. Martin: |
|||||
OUTRAGE
AT SECRET STAR WARS DEAL |
Press
Release from CND
|
October 17,
2004 |
|||
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today reacted with outrage at the Independent on Sunday's report that the Prime Minister has secretly agreed to host US Star Wars missiles at Fylingdales. The group has promised to use all means possible to resist the move. CND criticises the decision to host such missiles, the secretive, behind the scenes deal-making that led to that decision and the reported plans to develop a spin campaign to win public support. |
|||||
Missile-defence
plan shot down |
by Michael Byers
|
October 16,
2004 |
|||
Review: - Rushing
to Armageddon, The Shocking
Truth About Canada, Missile Defence, and Star Wars
by Mel
Hurtig |
|||||
Comment
on Australian missile plan sparks regional arms race fears |
by Larry Ross
|
August 28, 2004 |
The Australian decision to arm warplanes
with US long-range stealth missiles, highlights a trend since the 9/11
attack and before, for Australia to adopt policies which echo or compliment
US policy. |
|||||
Russian defense minister says US anti-missile system is no threat | Agence France-Presse | August 18, 2004 |
||||
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov
said |
||||||
Our Hidden WMD Program | by Fred Kaplan | April 23, 2004
|
|||
Why Bush is spending
so much on nuclear weapons. |
|||||
Preventing
Nuclear Armageddon |
by Francis A. Boyle |
January
31, 2004 |
||
With
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the impoverishment of Russia
leaving the United States as the world's "only superpower"
or "hyperpower," we are getting to the point, if we are
not there already, where only the United States has the capability
to launch an offensive first-strike strategic nuclear weapons attack
upon any adversary. For that precise reason, deploying the so-called
"national missile defense" (NMD) has become a critical objective
of the Bush Jr. administration.
|
German Aid to Scrap Russian Subs |
BBC
News
|
October
9, 2003 |
|||||||
Russia
has dozens of decommissioned nuclear submarines rusting near Murmansk
in the Arctic north - a problem that alarms its neighbours. Cost $354m |
|||||||||
|
Russia
Bares Its Military Teeth |
BBC News |
October 2, 2003 |
||
The
American Government's Attitude Will Provoke Nuclear Re-armourment.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has said his country does not rule out a pre-emptive military strike anywhere in the world if the national interest demands it. |
||||
Edwards
AFB-NASA/DOD/Weapons Tests, Flight Tests, Missile Defense |
August 27, 2003 |
|||
"I
know that
your Keep Space for Peace Week event will be just as beautiful as
in past times."
ALERT:http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh_2003 where EAFB will display war aircraft and weapons Oct 25 weekend |
||||
Space-Based
Missile Defense: Not So Heavenly |
by Theresa Hitchens |
July 21, 2003 |
||
|
US Missile Defense Based Security Strategy is Diametrically Opposed to Security Interests | July 23, 2003 |
|
|
Russian fears for nuclear security | BBC, Moscow | June
27, 2003 |
|
Leaders
of the main industrialised nations have agreed to pay Russia up to $20bn
towards protecting or dismantling its weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
||
US-based missiles to cover world |
by Julian Borger, The Guardian
|
July 1, 2003 |
|
America to build super weapons. | |||
The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory. | |||
|
Deploying a Campaign Promise | by Matt Martin, | May,
2003 |
||
President Bush has announced that the United States will deploy an array of missile defense systems between 2004 and 2005. This declaration fulfills a campaign promise. However, the reality is that the three systems being rolled out all suffer from technological difficulties, cost overruns, and politics. | ||||
Under
the Radar |
.New York Times |
March
1 , 2003 |
||
President
Bush's passion for a missile defense system is now a well-established,
heavily budgeted priority despite the fact that the technology remains
far from developed or proven. Claims thus far of missile test success
have been marginal in highly controlled experiments. That would seem
to argue for more testing before the new weapons are fielded at great
cost. Not so at the Pentagon, which is pressing to suspend the defense
law requiring thorough testing before the nation can commit to major
new weaponry.
|
||||
Australia Keen to Join US Star Wars Missile Shield Program | from Kevin Cross | February
28, 2003 |
||
STOP
STAR WARS. KEEP SPACE FOR PEACE 'SPACE WAR' Links -- U.S. military plans for global control through "full spectrum dominance" |
||||
SHOOT-DOWN The Pentagon trashes Bush's Missile Defense plans | by Fred Kaplan |
February
21, 2003 |
||
It is a rare thing when an outside critique of the president's most cherished weapons project is validated by an official Pentagon agency......... | ||||