From: Rense.com
Canceled European Missile Defense
Signals New Disarmament Race To War
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
9-25-9
Begin Excerpt
CANCELLED EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENSE SIGNALS NEW DISARMAMENT RACE TO WAR
This week Obama scrapped the Bush era proposal to build an anti-ballistic-missile system in Poland along with its corresponding search and tracking radar in the Czech Republic, which was supposedly designed to protect against a rogue missile attack from Iran. Getting Obama to dump the ABM system was a top priority for Russia, which knew that the Iran threat was an excuse to justify placing a system close to Russia capable of intercepting Russian missiles in their upward boost phase. This is where US interceptors would be most effective, having no warhead–instead of trying to knock down incoming Russian warheads, traveling at hyper speeds, over the target area. That’s a recipe for failure, especially if Russian claims about maneuvering warheads are true. This sudden backing down from directly confronting Russia appears to be part of a new and massive disarmament campaign as heralded by Obama in his speech to the UN–something the West always reverts to prior to sinking into a new world war. This week I’ll analyze why all such disarmament measures, without actual and verifiable Russian and Chinese reductions, will make the US more susceptible to a nuclear first strike.
The UK Guardian reported that, “Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country’s arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.” This is exactly the same thing President Bill Clinton ordered in 1996 that led to the secret issuance of PDD-60 completely changing the Reagan era nuclear doctrine designed to win a nuclear war with Russia. PDD-60 is still secret, but a few public statements issued in late 1997 by Clinton disarmament advisor Robert Bell and Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (who was part of the drafting and review process) [<[http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd> http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd ] indicated that the Presidential Decision Directive instructed US missile commanders “not to depend on launch-on-warning” (a tactic of launching all fixed silo missiles at the enemy before opponents first strike missiles landed and destroyed ours), –in essence, this PDD directed our country to absorb a first strike and retaliate later.
A frustrated Marine General is said to have exclaimed, “Retaliate with WHAT?” He knew, as did other commanders of our Trident nuclear submarines that Clinton had unilaterally agreed to keep half of all our SLBM submarines in port at any one time “to assure our Russian friends that we are not a threat.” When you telegraph a subtle message to the Russians that we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond after a first strike.
PDD-60 also removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communications with the President. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. Even if they did, it is probable given what we know that the President would simply not issue the orders to launch until a first strike had landed. This is not deterrence. This is suicide, or a very carefully planned agenda to make the US vulnerable. Why would US leaders do this? It is designed to drive Americans into a New World Order that has military power over member nations–something no amount of public manipulation in past decades has been able to do. When our leaders come out of their bunkers they will declare the “Russians and Chinese deceived us” and now (that our military forces are mostly destroyed) we have no choice but to enter into a military alliance with the UN to save us.
