Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)

Messages

1.: Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield: U.S.-NATO Military Strategy In Europe

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:38 pm (PDT)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/nuclear-weapons-and-interceptor-missiles-twin-pillars-of-u-s-nato-military-strategy-in-europe/

Stop NATO
April 23, 2010

Nuclear Weapons And Interceptor Missiles: Twin Pillars Of U.S.-NATO Military Strategy In Europe
Rick Rozoff

The two-day NATO foreign ministers meeting in the Estonian capital of Tallinn on April 22-23 focused on the completion of the military alliance's first 21st century Strategic Concept and on the war in Afghanistan, the near-complete absorption of the Balkans into the bloc, and the expansion of operations at the Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence established by NATO two years ago in the same city.

The most important deliberations, however, were on the integrally related questions of U.S. nuclear weapons stored on air bases in five NATO member states and the expansion of the Pentagon's interceptor missile program to all of Europe west of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

Discussions on the role of nuclear arms in Europe a generation after the end of the Cold War are in line with the Nuclear Posture Review released last month by the U.S. Department of Defense. NATO has never been known to deviate from American precedents and expectations. Its role is to accommodate and complement Pentagon initiatives. A nation like the Netherlands or Poland proposes, Washington disposes.

While speaking at a press conference in the ministerial meeting's host city, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen directly tied together the retention of U.S. nuclear arms in Europe and NATO's cooperation with its dominant member on a continent-wide interceptor missile system:

"NATO's core business, its raison-d'etre, is to protect our territory and our populations....And in a world where nuclear weapons actually exist, NATO needs a credible, effective, and safely managed deterrent.

"Missile defence is no replacement for an effective deterrent. But it can complement it. Because there are states, or other actors, who might not be rational enough to be deterred by our nuclear weapons. But they might be deterred by the realisation that their few missiles might not get through our defences."

What Rasmussen failed to mention was that in the event NATO collectively or a coalition of its main powers was to launch first strikes against nations to the east and south with conventional weapons, nuclear ones or a combination of both, an advanced phase interceptor system could prevent effective retaliation.

The NATO chief also said, "The missile threat to Europe is clear, and it is growing....Which means, to my mind, that we need to take on Alliance missile defence as a NATO mission."

Recent statements by Rasmussen, one of which has drawn the ire of Iran directly, would indicate from where the missile threat to Europe is alleged to emanate, but Rasmussen has no aversion to belaboring - or exaggerating - a point and added, "30 countries, including of course Iran, have or are developing missiles." To address the non-existent challenge to Europe Rasmussen announced that the foreign ministers in attendance would discuss "issues surrounding missile defence, including cost, command and control," and stated that at the bloc's summit in Lisbon, Portugal this November "NATO nations will decide whether or not it will to take on Alliance missile defence as a NATO mission."

After the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO ordinarily held a summit every third year in the 1990s and every second year from 1999 to 2008. But this year's summit will be the third of what have become annual events: Romania in 2008, France and Germany in 2009, and Portugal this year.

The last will be the first NATO summit held entirely in a founding member state since the fiftieth anniversary one in Washington, DC in 1999.

Not only the increased frequency (the Alliance has never before in its 61-year history conducted summits in three successive years), but the locations of the summits reveal the intensification of NATO activity and its steady drive to the east over the last decade. In the ten years between the Washington and last year's Strasbourg, France-Kehl, Germany summits, every one was held in Eastern Europe: In the Czech Republic in 2002, Turkey in 2004, Estonia in 2006 and Romania in 2008.

The sites, to the east and south of previous ones, are indicative of what NATO has become in the 21st century: An expansionist, active military force that has deployed troops to several current and recent conflict zones - Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia - and to numerous adjoining nations such as Albania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan and Kuwait. There were 50,000 multinational forces under NATO command in Kosovo in 1999. There are now over 90,000 (of 120,000 foreign troops) in Afghanistan, with both the aggregate number and the percentage to increase shortly.

In his opening statement at the foreign ministers meeting in Estonia, Rasmussen emphasized the centrality of U.S.-led missile shield plans in relation to the upcoming summit in Portugal and the new Strategic Concept that will be adopted there: "In Lisbon, NATO nations will decide if missile defence for our European territory and population should become an Alliance mission. I make no secret that I think it should."

He linked maintaining American nuclear gravity bombs in several European nations and the expansion of interceptor missile facilities in Eastern Europe to the Alliance's so-called collective defense doctrine. In his main address Rasmussen stated: "[W]e are delivering solidarity through our unflinching commitment to territorial defence. This core task of NATO is embodied in Article 5 of our founding treaty: An attack on one Ally is considered an attack on all. This is the very foundation of our Alliance....We need the right type of military capabilities. We need modern and mobile armed forces. Armed forces that are not static. Forces that are able to deploy quickly to assist an Ally in need."

The secretary general faithfully echoed the two rationales for nuclear first strikes continued in the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, and indeed the American global war on terror phraseology of the past nine years, in asserting that NATO "must retain a nuclear capability as long as there are rogue regimes or terrorist groupings that may pose a nuclear threat to us."

But he then segued seamlessly into identifying that NATO's main prospective target remains what it has always been: Russia. Without identifying it (or needing to in the following context), he said:

"We also need a visible presence of NATO across the entire territory of our Alliance. And we see a perfect example here in this region. We have put in place arrangements to police the Baltic airspace. A range of NATO members are actively engaged - sharing responsibility - showing solidarity – and demonstrating a capable and credible Alliance that is determined to defend our territory and to protect our populations.

"We also need to guard against new risks and threats to the security of our nations, such as energy cut-offs or cyber attacks. And here as well, we have a good example right here in Estonia, with the Alliance's Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence."

There are neither rogue nations nor al-Qaeda operatives with "nuclear suitcases" in the Baltic Sea region. References to energy cut-offs and cyber attacks are undeniable and exclusive allusions to actions NATO states have accused Russian of perpetrating.

The patrolling of Baltic air space by NATO warplanes and the - to call it by its proper name - cyber warfare center in Estonia are both aimed at Russia and Russia only.

In his speech Rasmussen was unequivocal in his pro-nuclear weapons stance. In addition to affirming that "What we...need is a credible nuclear deterrent" - supposedly because of "rogue regimes or terrorist groupings" - he added "for this reason, we also need a credible missile defence system, providing coverage for all the Allies."

Again the connection between U.S. nuclear arms at NATO nations' air bases in Europe and anti-ballistic missile installations on or near Russia's borders was made directly and again with the transparently untenable claim that both are needed against Iran and al-Qaeda.

What plans the new Strategic Concept to be endorsed at the November summit will finalize were indicated in another statement by Rasmussen:

"The United States already has a missile defence system. Some European Allies have a capacity to protect deployed forces against missile attacks....If we connect national systems into a NATO wide missile shield to protect all our Allies, that would be a very powerful demonstration of NATO solidarity in the 21st Century. And I hope we can make progress in that direction by the time of the next NATO Summit in Lisbon in November."

He repeated NATO's position on nuclear arms in an interview on Estonian public television: "If we look at today's world, then there is no alternative to nuclear arms in NATO's deterrent capability....My personal opinion is that the stationing of US nuclear weapons in Europe is part of deterrence to be taken seriously."

The 2010 Strategic Concept will not differ in any substantive manner from the current one adopted in 1999, which states:

"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.

"A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity and common commitment to war prevention continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements. Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe."

The presence of nuclear weapons in Europe is a foundational tenet of NATO and one of the root purposes for the bloc's existence. The first NATO Strategic Concept (The Strategic Concept For The Defense Of The North Atlantic Area), that of the year of its founding, 1949, includes among its commitments to:

"Insure the ability to carry out strategic bombing including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a US responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations."

NATO's policy in the intervening 61 years years has also obligated European member states to adhere to what is called nuclear sharing or nuclear burden sharing; that is, nuclear bombs stationed on bases in Europe are to be delivered by the host nations' air forces.

Currently there are from 200-400 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons stored on air bases in Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. The Federation of American Scientists has estimated the number as between 200 and 350 in the six aforementioned nations. All but Britain are non-nuclear states and the storage of U.S. nuclear weapons on their territories is a blatant violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which stipulates:

"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly....Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly."

The exigencies of international treaties, even ones to which NATO members are signatories, don't appear to have affected Anders Fogh Rasmussen's commitment to retaining American nuclear arms in Europe.

Nor do they influence U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's stance on the issue. According to a New York Times report on the first day of the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Estonia, she "was expected to urge caution in remarks to the ministers" in regards to her nation's nuclear weapons in Europe.

Paralleling Rasmussen's coupling of the two issues, "A senior American official said [Clinton] would underscore the need for NATO to maintain a deterrent capability and the need for the alliance to act together on this issue. The Obama administration is also pushing for NATO to embrace the American missile-defense system in Eastern Europe as a core mission of the alliance."

On the same day the Associated Press reported that Clinton "ruled out an early withdrawal of U.S. nuclear forces from Europe, telling a NATO meeting that any reductions should be tied to a nuclear pullback by Russia, which has far more of the weapons in range of European targets," and that "Clinton also said the Obama administration wants NATO to accept missile defense as a core mission of the alliance...."

What Clinton is attempting to effect is a linkage between her country's tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and Russia's arsenal of as many as 2,000 of the same. However, Russia maintains its weapons in its own territory, while the U.S.'s are half the world away, some as close to Russia as Turkey. Additionally, Russia's battlefield nuclear arsenal, given the diminished stature of its military in general in the post-Soviet period, is its last line of defense against a conventional or nuclear first strike and a deterrent against that threat.

With plans to launch its Prompt Global Strike program and with the testing of the X-37B orbital space plane while the Tallinn meeting was underway, the Pentagon is striving for a fast strike, first strike conventional weapons military superiority that could render Russia's nuclear forces easy to neutralize, hence useless. On April 23 former head of the Russian Air Force General Anatoly Kornukov described the launching of the X-37B as evidence of the U.S.'s weaponization of space and as part of a project to integrate Air Force, Space Command, and air and missile defense capabilities. The retired general told the Interfax news agency, "Now the US will be able to deliver a strike in a short time without due resistance."

Kornukov further warned that "aggressors from space could turn Russia into something like Iraq or Yugoslavia."

The director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter administrations, Robert M. Bowman, was quoted by the Voice of Russia on the space plane launch: "One possible mission would be the destruction of opposing military satellites, gaining absolute military control of space. The second would be to destroy targets on the surface of the Earth from space without warning. These two missions were the missions assigned to the Department of Defense in 1982 by Ronald Reagan in his secret defense guidance document."

To return to the issue of U.S. nuclear arms in Europe, Clinton's prepared address for a private dinner with the foreign ministers of the other 27 NATO states on the evening of April 22 "said that sticking with a nuclear NATO is consistent with Obama's Prague speech because the administration believes it should seek a balance between reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the world and meeting the future security needs of the alliance."

Continuing from the earlier-cited Associated Press account, Clinton "made several points that appeared to exclude the possibility of bringing an early end to the presence of the weapons," including the assertion "that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance." In her own words, for NATO, "as a nuclear alliance, sharing nuclear risks and responsibilities widely is fundamental."

U.S. nuclear strategy and the missile shield project on the European continent are incorporated into NATO doctrine and practice, whatever Europeans as a whole or individual governments think about the two issues.

Recent statements by Clinton's subordinate Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, and even more forceful ones by the chief of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, leave no doubt that the April 8 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will in no manner impede American missile deployments in Eastern Europe.

On April 21 Tauscher told a panel discussion at the Atlantic Council in Washington that "The new START Treaty does not constrain U.S. missile defense programs. The United States will continue to improve our missile defenses, as needed, to defend ourselves, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners."

Regarding Russian objections, severe enough to have led the nation's foreign minister to warn Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if Washington forges ahead with its interceptor missile plans, Tauscher said that Moscow's position "is not an integral part of the New START Treaty. It's not legally-binding. It won't constrain U.S. missile defence programs."

On April 23 Andrei Nesterenko, spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, said at a press briefing in Moscow: "We are concerned about the United States' absolutely unfounded anti-missile activities in Poland.

"It is not clear to us why Patriot anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems are being deployed near the Russian border. Nor have we an answer to the question about what threats will be tackled in the drill which will be held very close to Russia's Kaliningrad region."

Three days before, the Missile Defense Agency's O'Reilly told a hearing of the House Armed Services subcommittee on defense appropriations that "The new START treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program."

Not one to mince words, he added, "Our targets will no longer be subject to START constraints, which limited our use of air-to-surface and waterborne launches of targets which are essential for a cost-effective testing of a missile defense interceptor against medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the Pacific region."

Less than a week earlier the deputy head of Russia's Security Council, Yuri Baluyevsky - former chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and first deputy defense minister - identified "the deployment of the U.S. global missile defense system" as one of the two main military threats to Russia.

In 2007 NATO's senior governing body, the North Atlantic Council, endorsed the Alliance's participation in a missile shield that would take in the territory of all member states. The 2008 and 2009 summits confirmed that position.

Earlier this month Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with President Obama in Prague and, in addition to a U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile battery and 100 troops to arrive in Poland next month, said that the START II agreement would have no impact on the deployment of more advanced Standard Missile-3 anti-missile interceptors in his country.

In the same week Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolai Mladenov disclosed that his government will enter into negotiations with the U.S. later this year on the deployment of interceptor missiles. The missiles to be stationed in Bulgaria will presumably also be an adaptation of the previously ship-based Standard Missile-3. In his comments on the subject Mladenov explicitly described the deployments as related to NATO plans for all of Europe.

His nation, like neighboring Romania, which in February announced its intention to house U.S. interceptor missiles as well, and Poland, are former Warsaw Pact states that are now NATO members. As such they are obligated to accede to Alliance, which is to say American, plans for stationing missiles and turning their Cold War era military bases over to the West for modernization and expansion. And, if requested, to allow the deployment of strategic weapons and delivery systems.

NATO is the conduit used for bringing U.S. nuclear weapons into Europe, where they remain two decades after the end of the Cold War. Europe will not be free of nuclear arms until NATO is disbanded.

Related articles:

U.S. Reserves Use Of Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield To Defend Global Empire
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/u-s-reserves-use-of-nuclear-arms-missile-shield-to-defend-its-empire/

Prompt Global Strike: World Military Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/prompt-global-strike-world-military-superiority-without-nuclear-weapons

As Obama Talks Of Arms Control, Russians View U.S. As Global Aggressor
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/as-obama-talks-of-arms-control-russians-view-u-s-as-global-aggressor

Rasmussen In Poland: Expeditionary NATO, Missile Shield And Nuclear Weapons
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/rasmussen-in-poland-expeditionary-nato-missile-shield-nuclear-weapons

U.S. Tightens Missile Shield Encirclement Of China And Russia
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/u-s-tightens-missile-shield-encirclement-of-china-and-russia

NATO Expansion, Missile Deployments And Russia's New Military Doctrine
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/nato-expansion-missile-deployments-and-russias-new-military-doctrine

NATO's Secret Transatlantic Bond: Nuclear Weapons In Europe
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/natos-secret-transatlantic-bond-nuclear-weapons-in-europe

Dangerous Missile Battle In Space Over Europe: Fifth Act In U.S. Missile Shield Drama
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/dangerous-missile-battle-in-space-over-europe-fifth-act-in-u-s-missile-shield-drama

U.S. Accelerates First Strike Global Missile Shield System
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/u-s-accelerates-first-strike-global-missile-shield-system

Germany And NATO's Nuclear Nexus
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/germany-and-natos-nuclear-nexus

Militarization Of Space: Threat Of Nuclear War On Earth
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/militarization-of-space-threat-of-nuclear-war-on-earth/

NATO's Sixty-Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: NATO's Top Military Chief Joins Talks On Nuclear Arms, Missile Shiel

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:52 pm (PDT)

http://www.eucom.mil/english/fullstory.asp?article=Supreme-Allied-Commander-Europe-attends-NATO

United States European Command
April 23, 2010

Supreme Allied Commander Europe attends NATO foreign ministers' meeting
Apr 23, 2010
Allied Command Operations Public Affairs

TALLINN, Estonia — Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Navy Adm. James Stavridis, is participating in a two-day informal NATO foreign ministers' meeting that began April 23 in Tallinn, Estonia.

Among the issues being discussed are the new strategic concept for NATO, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, Russia, and the International Security Assistance Force operation in Afghanistan.

Maintaining and advancing solidarity is the main challenge for the alliance according to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Ministers agreed that the nuclear issue is important in NATO's work on the strategic concept, and that the Alliance remains, as always, firmly committed to maintaining the security of its members....

They stressed that a broad sharing of the burden for NATO's nuclear policy remains essential and that decisions on the Alliance's nuclear policy will be made together. NATO's unity will remain absolutely firm.

Allied ministers highlighted that NATO must continue to maintain a balance between credible deterrence, and support for arms control disarmament and non-proliferation.

According to the Secretary General, in a world where nuclear weapons exist, "NATO needs a credible, effective and safely managed deterrent. Nevertheless, the Alliance must also do what it can to support arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation". Foreign ministers stated that missile defence, while not replacing deterrence, can complement it.

Allied representatives considered during a dinner discussion issues related to missile defence, including cost, command and control, as well as how to engage Russia on this issue "to the benefit of Europe's security and its political unity", as the Secretary General has said.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: U.S. Trains Bulgarian, Romanian Air Forces For Global NATO Role

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:35 pm (PDT)

http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123200571

U.S. Air Forces in Europe
April 20, 2010

Aviano shows maintenance training to Romanian, Bulgarian Airmen
by Staff Sgt. Julius V. Delos Reyes
31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

AVIANO AIR BASE, Italy: In an effort to improve an already established military relationship, Team Aviano hosted a familiarization event with the Romanian and Bulgarian air forces April 12 to 16.

The purpose of the event was to provide a learning experience for the Romanian and Bulgarian airmen on how the 31st Maintenance Group trains and develops its Airmen from the lowest rank to senior NCO level, as well as the base process on managing aircraft maintenance.
....
According to Romanian Capt. Constantin Pecete, Romanian air force Headquarters Fixed Maintenance officer, their mission, in addition to the maintenance NCO training program, is to develop a career for their NCOs and see what principles they can adapt to their air force.

"We are trying to buy new multi-role fighters, and with that, we have to adopt the training program because we can't maintain new aircraft with old principles of training," Captain Pecete said.

Familiarization events like this are necessary because it helps foster relationships with other NATO countries, said Maj. Malcolm Byrd, Building Partnership Command strategist from Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

"Some of (NATO countries) want to figure out how they can better operate with other NATO countries," Major Byrd said. "It is important so that when we become partner nations, we can work together as NATO allies. If we go to them, we know that the practices we use are also the ones they are using."

This training event is also important since Romania and Bulgaria are part of NATO that accomplishes specific missions, Lieutenant Brozena said.

"If we help improve a process for them, it helps the overall NATO goal," she said. "While we are doing tours and briefings, we were also building a network, a relationship with our NATO counterparts."
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: Obama Revives Rumsfeld's Missile Scheme, Risks Nuclear War

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:59 pm (PDT)

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Wired
April 23, 2010

Obama Revives Rumsfeld's Missile Scheme, Risks Nuke War

By Noah Shachtman

The Obama administration is poised to take up one of the more dangerous and hare-brained schemes of the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon. The New York Times is reporting that the Defense Department is once again looking to equip intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. The missiles could then, in theory, destroy fleeing targets a half a world away — a no-notice "bolt from the blue," striking in a matter of hours. There's just one teeny-tiny problem: the launches could very well start World War III.

Over and over again, the Bush administration tried to push the idea of these conventional ICBMs. Over and over again, Congress refused to provide the funds for it. The reason was pretty simple: those anti-terror missiles look and fly exactly like the nuclear missiles we'd launch at Russia or China, in the event of Armageddon. "For many minutes during their flight patterns, these missiles might appear to be headed towards targets in these nations," a congressional study notes. That could have world-changing consequences. "The launch of such a missile," then-Russian president Vladimir Putin said in a state of the nation address after the announcement of the Bush-era plan, "could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces."

The Pentagon mumbled all kinds of assurances that Beijing or Moscow would never, ever, never misinterpret one kind of ICBM for the other. But the core of their argument essentially came down to this: Trust us, Vlad Putin! That ballistic missile we just launched in your direction isn't nuclear. We swear!

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld couldn't even muster that coherent of a defense.

"Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional," he said in a press conference, "after it hit within 30 minutes."

The new "Prompt Global Strike" plan is a little different from the old one. It relies on land-based missiles, instead of sub-based ones. The idea is that these conventional missiles sites would be open to Russian inspection, and wouldn't accidentally drop debris on a superpower.

But Moscow doesn't exactly seem soothed by this new plan. "World states will hardly accept a situation in which nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain members of the international community," Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this month.

When the idea of Prompt Global Strike was first proposed, the goal was to hit anywhere on the planet in under an hour. Old-school weapons had proved ineffective at catch terrorists on the move. Newer, quicker arms might be able to do the job, instead. Flight tests for some of those weapons — like a hypersonic cruise missile — are just getting underway. Until then, relying on conventional ICBMs to do the job, and risking a nuclear showdown, is just plain crazy.

UPDATE: Our pal Robert Farley raised these same concerns weeks ago, when the Nuclear Posture Review came out (and I was still on full-time daddy duty).
[Photo: Air Force]

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29#ixzz0lyzamd00

===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: NATO In Afghanistan: Germany "Making Peace With War"

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:19 pm (PDT)

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15954464

The Economist
April 22, 2010

Germany and Afghanistan

What is this thing called war?
Slowly and painfully Germany's leaders and voters are coming to terms with being at war in Afghanistan

-On April 15th the Taliban killed four and wounded five German soldiers who were escorting two Afghan battalions south of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan, the main area of German operations. Three soldiers were killed on patrol two weeks earlier. In September a German commander called an airstrike near Kunduz that killed and wounded as many as 142 people, some of them civilians. This was the bloodiest action involving the German army since 1945. German war deaths now stand at 43.
-Germany loosened its rules of engagement last summer. But the government waited until early this year to admit that the operation qualified as an "armed conflict," which frees soldiers to operate still more forcefully in their own defence.
The federal prosecutors seem to have endorsed this shift by deciding not to charge the German commander who had ordered in the Kunduz airstrike with war crimes. He would have been guilty only if he had known that the number of civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the military gain, the prosecutors said. Out of bitter necessity, Germany is making its peace with war.

German troops have been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years. But Germans have been slow to accept this. "Stabilisation deployment" was how the politicians described Germany's role in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to which it is the third-largest contributor of troops. This was meant to convey the impression that the soldiers were helping Afghans build schools and dig wells rather than killing or being killed. Thus did ministers seek to reconcile Germany's duties as an ally with its instinctive pacifism, born of the horrors of the second world war.

The euphemism now lies buried beneath the rubble of reality. On April 15th the Taliban killed four and wounded five German soldiers who were escorting two Afghan battalions south of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan, the main area of German operations. Three soldiers were killed on patrol two weeks earlier. In September a German commander called an airstrike near Kunduz that killed and wounded as many as 142 people, some of them civilians. This was the bloodiest action involving the German army since 1945. German war deaths now stand at 43.

In the wake of this bloodshed has come plainer speaking. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who became defence minister in October, alluded early on to Afghanistan's "warlike conditions". Now he frankly admits that Germany is at war. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has kept her distance from its tragedies, appeared at a memorial service for fallen soldiers for the first time on April 9th. Federal prosecutors have now cast politicians' hesitant talk of war in legal form. In siding with the Afghan government in a civil war, they ruled on April 19th, Germany is engaged in a "non-international armed conflict". "Legally, the situation is now fully clarified," says Claus Kress, a professor of international law at the University of Cologne.

The purpose of this new candour is twofold: to shore up support for an increasingly unpopular war and to give the armed forces a legal framework in which to prosecute it....

Opposition to the war is rising. Some 62% of Germans want to pull out, the highest level recorded by Forsa, a pollster. But the resistance is politically passive and a cross-party consensus in favour is holding. In February the Bundestag extended the Afghanistan mandate by another 12 months and raised the number of troops that could be deployed by 850, to 5,350. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) led the government that took Germany into the war. Only the ex-communist Left Party is demanding an immediate pullout.

What happens this year and next will be decisive, says Rainer Arnold, an SPD member of the Bundestag. In the short run he expects more violence. The new ISAF tactics call for allied troops to accompany Afghan forces in joint operations, exposing them to attack. If the bloodshed continues to increase "support will fall so massively that it will be very difficult" to continue in Afghanistan, says Mr Arnold. If it ebbs, "society and my party will tolerate a few more years."

Belatedly, the government has decided that it is wiser to defend the mission than to downplay it. On April 22nd Mrs Merkel appeared before the Bundestag to defend NATO's plan to pacify the country alongside the Afghan army and police and then hand over responsibility for maintaining peace as quickly as possible. Mr zu Guttenberg...has fashioned himself into a champion of his troops, many of whom feel they are undertrained, ill-equipped and badly led by generals schooled in fighting Soviet tanks. He has visited Afghanistan three times and ordered more equipment, including armoured vehicles and howitzers. The Americans may supply up to 70 sorely needed helicopters.

This stood Mr zu Guttenberg in good stead when he suffered the first big reversal of a dazzling career. On taking office he called the Kunduz airstrike militarily "appropriate" despite its horrific death toll. But he then reversed himself and sacked the top general and his ministry's most senior civilian official for failing to inform him properly. They in turn have accused him of lying. Mr zu Guttenberg is expected to survive a parliamentary inquiry, thanks largely to his soldierly sheen and his popularity with voters.

Now the Kunduz airstrike has become the catalyst to help Germany redefine the Afghan operation in more warlike terms. As part of a "stabilisation" force, troops were expected to act more like policemen in camouflage, which "drastically limited" their scope for action, says Mr Kress. That may be one reason why the relatively tranquil north has become progressively more dangerous. Germany loosened its rules of engagement last summer. But the government waited until early this year to admit that the operation qualified as an "armed conflict," which frees soldiers to operate still more forcefully in their own defence.

The federal prosecutors seem to have endorsed this shift by deciding not to charge the German commander who had ordered in the Kunduz airstrike with war crimes. He would have been guilty only if he had known that the number of civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the military gain, the prosecutors said. Out of bitter necessity, Germany is making its peace with war.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: AFRICOM's Footsteps: Japan To Open First Foreign Military Base

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:32 pm (PDT)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvlyKeSUEy8lsdNPRIFVIz_6b5OA

Agence France-Presse
April 23, 2010

Piracy rattles Japan to open first foreign military base
By Emmanuel Goujon

-"A camp will be built to house our personnel and material. Currently we are stationed at the American base....We sent military teams to Yemen, Oman, Kenya and Djibouti. In April 2009, we chose Djibouti."
-The Red Sea state, which is home to the largest overseas French military base and the only US army base in Africa, was picked for its suitable air and sea ports as well as political stability....

DJIBOUTI: Japan is opening its first overseas army base in Djibouti, a small African state strategically located at the southern end of the Red Sea on the Gulf of Aden, to counter rising piracy in the region.

The 40-million-dollar base [is] expected to be completed by early next year....

The Djibouti base breaks new ground for Japan, which has had no standing army since World War II and cannot wage war. It however has armed forces - the Japan Self-Defence Forces - which were formed at the end of US occupation in 1952.

"This will be the only Japanese base outside our country and the first in Africa," Keizo Kitagawa, Japan's navy force captain and coordinator of the deployment, told AFP recently.
....
"A camp will be built to house our personnel and material. Currently we are stationed at the American base," Kitagawa said.

Since 2008, an international flotilla of warships has been patrolling the Gulf of Aden in a bid to stop the hijackings.

"The safety of the seas is therefore essential for Japan... the stability of this region will benefit Japan," Kitagawa added.

....
Japan's decision was prompted by pressure from the country's maritime industry.

"We sent military teams to Yemen, Oman, Kenya and Djibouti. In April 2009, we chose Djibouti," Kitagawa said.

The Red Sea state, which is home to the largest overseas French military base and the only US army base in Africa, was picked for its suitable air and sea ports as well as political stability, the official said.

Last April, Japan's defence ministry announced it was sending two destroyers and surveillance planes to boost the anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: NATO Foreign Ministers Deliberate On Nuclear Policy, Missile Shield

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:53 pm (PDT)

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-EF23CF3D-B700F255/natolive/news_62852.htm?

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
April 23, 2010

Ministers discuss future of NATO's nuclear policy and prospects for missile defence

NATO Foreign Ministers discussed in Tallinn how to take forward the Alliance's nuclear posture, with an eye to the new Strategic Concept, as well as issues surrounding missile defence.

Ministers agreed that the nuclear issue is important in NATO's work on the Strategic Concept, and that the Alliance remains, as always, firmly committed to maintaining the security of its members, but at the lowest possible level of nuclear weapons.

They stressed that a broad sharing of the burden for NATO's nuclear policy remains essential and that decisions on the Alliance's nuclear policy will be made together. NATO's unity will remain absolutely firm.

Allied ministers highlighted that NATO must continue to maintain a balance between credible deterrence, and support for arms control disarmament and non-proliferation.

According to the Secretary General, in a world where nuclear weapons exist, "NATO needs a credible, effective and safely managed deterrent. Nevertheless, the Alliance must also do what it can to support arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation". Foreign Ministers stated that missile defence, while not replacing deterrence, can complement it.

Allied representatives considered during a dinner discussion issues related to missile defence, including cost, command and control, as well as how to engage Russia on this issue "to the benefit of Europe's security and its political unity", as the Secretary General has said.

At the Lisbon Summit in November, NATO nations will decide whether to take on Alliance missile defence as a NATO mission.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: NATO, Estonia Sign Agreement On Cyber Defense

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:55 pm (PDT)

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_62894.htm?

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
April 23, 2010

NATO and Estonia conclude agreement on cyber defence

On the margins of the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Tallinn, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreement was signed on 23 April 2010 between Estonia and NATO. The MOU creates a legal framework for cyber defence cooperation between NATO and Estonia. It will facilitate the exchange of information and provide means for create a mechanism for assistance in case of cyber attacks.

The agreement was signed on behalf of NATO by Amb. Claudio Bisogniero, Deputy Secretary General, and on behalf of Estonia by Ms Epp Joab, Director of Estonian Informatics Centre, and Mr. Tarmo Turkson, Director of Estonian Communications Security Authority.

Similar MOUs on cyber defence have already been signed with Slovakia, Turkey, United Kingdomand United States.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: India: U.S. Warships, Submarines, Aircraft In Joint Exercises

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:03 pm (PDT)

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52826

Navy Newsstand
April 23, 2010

US Navy Prepares to Participate in Exercise Malabar 2010
By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Charles Oki, Navy Public Affairs Supprt Element West, Det. Japan

-Training conducted at sea will include surface and anti-submarine warfare, coordinated gunnery exercises, air defense....

GOA, India: Ships, submarines and aircraft from the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet arrived in Goa, India, April 23 to begin exercise Malabar 2010 hosted by the Indian Navy.

Malabar is a week-long bilateral military exercise which aims to promote the interoperability of these two maritime allies.

The activities will range from fundamental coordination and communication to more advanced and complex strategic naval operations.

"The U.S. Navy and Indian Navy are natural partners and friends who share a mutual desire to ensure security and stability in this region," said Rear Adm. Kevin M. Donegan, commander, Battle Force 7th Fleet. "A high-end exercise like Malabar strengthens our growing naval relationship and the interoperability between our two professional maritime forces."

Training conducted at sea will include surface and anti-submarine warfare, coordinated gunnery exercises, air defense and visit, board, search and seizure drills....

U.S. forces participating in Malabar will include the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67), Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Lassen (DDG 82) and USS Chafee (DDG 90), Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate USS Curts (FFG 38), Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760), P-3 Orion aircraft, SH-60 helicopters and a Sea, Air and Land (SEAL) special forces detachment.

Operating in the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, the U.S. 7th Fleet is the largest of the forward-deployed U.S. fleets, covering 48 million square miles and with approximately 60-70 ships, 200-300 aircraft, and 40,000 Sailors and Marines assigned at any time.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: Poll: Finns Want Troops Withdrawn From Afghan War

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" r_rozoff@yahoo.com r_rozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:21 pm (PDT)

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/domestic-news/general/10780-half-of-finns-want-less-boots-on-the-ground-in-afghanistan-poll-.html

Helsinki Times
April 23, 2010

Half of Finns want less boots on the ground in Afghanistan - poll

Half of Finns would withdraw Finnish troops from Afghanistan, either immediately or gradually, suggests a survey published by Verkkoapila, a Centre Party news website, and the web edition of Centre Party organ Suomenmaa on Friday.

The survey indicated that 26 per cent of Finns supported decreasing the number of Finnish soldiers in Afghanistan progressively. 11 per cent of respondents would withdraw troops immediately while 13 per cent thought Finland should give up military crisis management and peacekeeping altogether.

21 per cent of respondents did not hold any view on the matter, while 19 per cent thought the number of Finnish troops should be kept at the current level for as long as the United States was still in Afghanistan. Ten per cent felt that Finland should be prepared to increase the number of troops it has in Afghanistan.

Over 1,200 Finns responded to the survey conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) on 19-25 March.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity

5

New Members

Visit Your Group

Drive Traffic

London Wallpaper

Saturday, April 24, 2010

US NATO MILITARY STRATEGY IN EUROPE

Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)

Messages

Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield: U.S.-NATO Military Strategy In Europe

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:38 pm (PDT)

NATO's Top Military Chief Joins Talks On Nuclear Arms, Missile Shiel

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:52 pm (PDT)

U.S. Trains Bulgarian, Romanian Air Forces For Global NATO Role

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:35 pm (PDT)

Obama Revives Rumsfeld's Missile Scheme, Risks Nuclear War

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:59 pm (PDT)

NATO In Afghanistan: Germany "Making Peace With War"

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:19 pm (PDT)

AFRICOM's Footsteps: Japan To Open First Foreign Military Base

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:32 pm (PDT)

NATO Foreign Ministers Deliberate On Nuclear Policy, Missile Shield

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:53 pm (PDT)

NATO, Estonia Sign Agreement On Cyber Defense

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:55 pm (PDT)

India: U.S. Warships, Submarines, Aircraft In Joint Exercises

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:03 pm (PDT)

Poll: Finns Want Troops Withdrawn From Afghan War

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" r_rozoff@yahoo.com r_rozoff

Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:21 pm (PDT)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive