Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad
By F. William engdahl
4 June 2016
To read the Western mainstream media, we would
be led to believe that the big, bad Russian Bear, with Vladimir Putin atop,
shaking a fistful of nuclear warheads, is confronting the West in the most
threatening manner imaginable. We should believe Russia is provoking at every
turn, frothing at the mouth and threatening to invade the Baltic countries and
perhaps all Western Europe. We would feel quite justified, as the propaganda
spin of Washington claims, to protect America’s European allies from surprise
Russian nuclear attack by surrounding Russia with anti-Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD) systems
So we as citizens in the Western NATO
countries, have little reaction at all when we read some days ago that the Obama
White House announced it had activated the first phase of its anti-ballistic
missile defense system (BMD), known as AEGIS, in an air base in Deveselu,
Romania. Poland will be next to become activated with Washington’s Aegis.
The Aegis Ashore system has been officially
put into operation and can already launch SM-3 interceptor missiles. The system
includes 24 anti-aircraft SM-3 missiles. At the same time the Pentagon is
placing its BMD installations in Japan and South Korea and possibly, Australia,
aimed at China. Our perception of world reality is primarily shaped for us by
what we read in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or hear on CNN or BBC.
We sigh a small sigh of relief that our world is now more secure. Nothing is
farther from reality. That’s a grave error.
On May 13, NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, alongside officials representing the United States and European
NATO members, announced the activation of a new missile system, based in
Romania. Stoltenberg announced,
“The United States’ Aegis ashore system is
declared certified for operations.”
The new missile network is based at Romania’s
Deveselu military air base. The US is also building another new US missile base
in Poland. On the same day Deveselu missile base was opened for “business,”
construction began on the US missile base near Redzikowo, Poland. Both will
operate under the direct command of the US Department of Defense. The Pentagon
insists both are intended to protect Europe from Iran (sic!). Shall we call
that a pretty pathetic propaganda deception of Washington? I would say so. Both
and other systems are directly intended for Russia and those “unarmed” Aegis
missiles are potentially nuclear-capable and carry Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise
Missiles.
The Romanian missile base is positioned less
than 400 miles from Russia’s main Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea.
AEGIS is able to fire short and long-range missiles.i Neither Romania nor
Poland will have any say over its use, even though their territory will be the
target of any pre-emptive Russian reaction.
Commenting on the event, the New York Times
openly acknowledged, “The launch-pad violates a 1987 treaty intended to take
the superpowers off their hair-trigger nuclear alter, the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, by banning land-based cruise and medium-range missiles
with a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.”
US and NATO officials insist that AEGIS is
directed against Iran and other small states viewed by Washington as “rogue
states,” and poses no threat to Russia or China, something absurd on the surface.
The reality, that Russia is the target of the
Romanian Aegis system was made plain by the remarks at the opening ceremony by
Romanian President Klaus Ioannis. Ioannis made clear that the new installation
is part of broader plans to use his country as a staging area for NATO
activities throughout Eastern Europe and the Black Sea .
Of course the Black Sea is home to Russia’s
naval Black Sea Fleet in Russian Crimea. Admitting that the real target of the
missiles is the Russian Federation, Ioannis called on NATO leaders to maintain
a “permanent naval presence” in the Black Sea, as part of a military buildup
aimed at making a “credible and predictable presence of Allied forces on the
eastern flank.” A glance at the map shows that the only nation bordering the
Black Sea not either in NATO or controlled by pro-NATO regimes is the Russian
Federation.
During his swearing in some days before the
Aegis opening US Army General and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Curtis
Scaparrotti, warned that Russia “is striving to project itself as a world
power.” He declared that US forces in Europe must “enhance our levels of
readiness and our agility in the spirit of being able to fight tonight if
deterrence fails .” That
sounds pretty “hair-trigger” to me.
Russia made clear it does not greet the news
of Aegis deployment with grace or joy. Russia’s President Putin told news
agencies, “This is not a defense system. This is part of a US nuclear strategic
potential brought on to a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such a
periphery…Those people taking such decisions must know that until now they have
lived calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements of ballistic
missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralize the
emerging threats to the Russian
Federation. ”
Russian commentator Konstantin Bogdanov told
the New York Times, “The antimissile sites in Eastern Europe might even
accelerate the slippery slope to nuclear war in a crisis. They would inevitably
become priority targets in the event of nuclear war, possibly even targets for
preventive strikes… Countries like Romania that host American antimissile
systems might be the only casualties, whereas the United States would then
reconcile with Russia ‘over the smoking ruins of the East European elements of
the missile defense system .”
Possible Russian response
Many Washington “think-tank generals,”
neo-conservative academic hawks and even senior Pentagon professional military
generals, more concerned with lobbying for a bigger defense budget than for
reality, seem to believe the United States is invulnerable and that their drip-drip
escalation against Russia and also China in recent years will restore their
vanishing sole superpower global hegemony. It won’t, and in fact may end up
obliterating the United States mainland as well as Europe, even if it costs
Russians dearly.
A well-respected Cold War military veteran
originally from the Soviet Union, later in French intelligence, writing under
the nom de plume, The Saker, recently outlined in detail what the United States
and NATO can expect from Russia if Washington foolishly continues to escalate
US troop deployments on Russia’s doorstep in the Baltics, activates more of its
BMD missile defenses–which, by the way, as Vladimir Putin pointed out, are also
capable of being easily converted to carry nuclear warheads.
Saker correctly points out that Washington’s
AEGIS kinetic BMD system at present is no real military threat to Russia’s
military defense capabilities. It is the escalation that they see that alarms
Moscow. That, especially since Washington’s February, 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine,
and the lock-step obedience as literal vassals, of every EU head of government
to Washington orders since, even at their own economic expense.
As a consequence, Russia has begun to prepare
for the “unthinkable.” Keep in mind Russians abhor war, having lost perhaps up
to 30 million souls in the 1940’s only to see the latecomer, USA, who jumped in
in 1944, after the Russians has been taking the vast bulk of the fighting
against Nazi Germany, claim themselves as “victor.” Yet, through history going
back to the Great Schism of 1054, Russians, when forced in existential crises,
are capable of defending against all odds.
Saker describes the Russian current response
strategy which has been quietly in preparation since the Cheney-Bush
Administration announced plans in 2007
for a US BMD in Poland and the Czech Republic:
“The Russian effort
is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force
planning, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the
Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:
• The re-creation of
the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)
• The deployment of
the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)
• The deployment of
the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)
• The deployment of
the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)”
Three of the four points are especially worth
describing in detail. Saker describes the Iskander-M: “The new Iskander-M
operational tactical missile system is…extremely accurate, it has advanced
anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically
undetectable on the ground…This will be the missile tasked with destroying all
the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe Eastern
Europe…”
Then he details Sarmat ICBM, in progress.
After noting that during the Cold War, the SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever
developed, was scary enough. ” “The RS-28 ‘Sarmat’ brings the terror to a
totally new level. The Sarmat is…capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads
which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and
which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have
to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of
reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these
elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely
impossible to intercept .”
Then Russia’s Status-6 strategic torpedo: “The
Status-6 torpedo would be delivered from an ‘autonomous underwater vehicle’
with advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled
and steered from a specialized command module. The vehicle can dive as deep as
1 kilometer at a speed up to 185km/h with a range of up to 10,000km (over 6,200
miles). The Status-6 system can target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy
bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frightening configuration, it
can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste
to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be…capable of
delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the
most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57
megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.” Saker adds, “Keep in mind that most
of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which
makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks…the depth and speed of
the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to interception .”
The Saker notes there are other equally
serious possible Russian responses to any potential existential danger for the
motherland, rodina, as Russians call their homeland.
Nuclear Primacy
The active USA BMD project began during Ronald
Reagan’s Presidency. In 1972 the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty)
between Moscow and Washington placed severe limits on development or deployment
of Ballistic Missile Defense, but didn’t prevent intense research on such
systems. That was what President Ronald Reagan announced to the world in March
1983, when he launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which the press
quickly dubbed, ‘Star Wars.’ When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1990, Washington temporarily shelved full-scale work on
deploying their BMD systems. But only temporarily, until the Cheney-Bush
Administration in 2001.
Ballistic Missile Defense systems are the
final element that could make a US nuclear first strike a possible live option.
It would be aimed to take out any Soviet missiles that had somehow survived a
US First Strike.
According to the late Lt. Col. Robert Bowman,
former head of President Carter’s then-top secret SDI research, anti-missile
defense remained in 2009, “the missing link to a First Strike” capability.
Already in 2003 at the onset of the illegal US
invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon’s 2003 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that
nuclear weapons were here to stay. The declared purpose of US nuclear weapons
under the hawkish Cheney-Bush era was changing from nuclear deterrence (MAD)
and weapon of last resort to a central, usable component of the US military
arsenal. The unthinkable was being thought in Washington.
In September 2015 the Pentagon announced
Washington’s decision to station 20 next-generation advanced nuclear bombs of
Type B61-12 in Germany, above the protests of leading but impotent German
politicians. The B61-12 is in fact a brand new nuclear weapon with vastly
improved military capabilities, and the most expensive nuclear bomb project
ever. I noted in an article then, that Washington’s deployment of new nuclear
weapons in Germany, “is no minor affair as it brings the likelihood of nuclear
war by miscalculation between the United States and Russia one giant step
closer and it makes the German Republic a direct high-priority target in any
such escalation .”
If I am walking down the street minding my own
business and I see a psychopath leap at me with a drawn knife clearly aiming to
kill, I have a moral responsibility to defend my life with all my means.
Likewise, as Kremlin planners carefully monitor the actions of the US military
and State Department since declaration of plans to install its Ballistic
Missile Defense in NATO Western European lands back in 2007, after the
Cheney-Bush Administration unilaterally tore up the Intermediate-range Nuclear
Forces (INF) treaty of 1987 to free itself to deploy its BMD systems, and now
with deployments of NATO and US troops and tanks at the periphery of Russia as
well as around China, both countries are taking deadly seriously the growing
danger to their very existence through an “unthinkable” US nuclear first
strike.
As a nice cheery footnote, the state-owned
China paper, Global Times, in its May 29, 2016 edition reported that China will
send a submarine armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific for the first
time. The paper, making an official Beijing Government response to Washington’s
military Asia Pivot, added that China has been adopting an “effective nuclear
deterrence” strategy, with much fewer nuclear warheads than the West powers.
Also, China is the only one among the nuclear powers to announce a no-first-use
policy. It means that China’s nuclear deterrence lies in its capability to
strike back… As Sino-US tensions build, it is necessary for China to strengthen
its capability for nuclear retaliation. It will help with balance in the
Asia-Pacific region and enhance the US willingness to seek peace with China.
It is vital that the still sane among us
clearly understand how utterly mad, as in insane, not in Mutual Assured
Destruction, the Washington missile defense and Russia provoking strategy of
the past two decades, especially the past two years, is. Unlike US Defense
Secretary Ash Carter, I for one am not willing to end up in a thermonuclear ash
heap.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk
consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton
University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for
the online magazine “New Eastern
Outlook”
Source: http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO4June2016.php
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.