33 Minutes of Fearmongering
By Steve Hynd Thursday Oct 23, 2008 1:10pm
The Russians aren't fooled by continual protestations that America's missile defense plans are aimed at "rogue states" - none of whom yet has the capability of throwing a nuke at the U.S. and who probably would choose infiltration as a delivery method in any case. They've been beefing up their missile force, introducing a new mark and modifying existing missile types with decoys, in the face of American righwing zeal for destabilizing the balance of deterrence that has served the world so well for decades.
That's not surprising. I'm sure that Russian intelligence and military planners can read, and surf the sites of those rightwing think-tanks who have provided the intellectual impetus for the Bush administration, Mccain and others. They know that missile defense, despite the spin of the Bush administration, has always been about the Soviet Union, and then Russia. It's all about Reagan's Star Wars dream, which had as its focus the "Evil Empire" still described in such belligerent terms by John McCain.
For instance, they'll have already noticed that the Heritage Foundation is planning a major publicity push on missile defense in January, planning to pressure President Obama to continue funding the multi-billion program.
The wingnut think-tank will be releasing a documentary, called 33 Minutes, and is already boosting it on its own website. The fearmongering blurb for the film says:
A ballistic missile from a foreign enemy would take 33 minutes to reach the United States. With each passing day, this becomes a growing danger to America, yet our government has failed to build the missile defense systems capable of defending us against such attacks.
Our enemies are attempting to stockpile arsenals that threaten our freedom and prosperity. North Korea and Iran are the most prominent, but this also includes Russia, China and other nations that have missiles capable of killing Americans in very large numbers and threatening our allies.
The time has come to revive the strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world's security.
This documentary aims to do just that by highlighting the disastrous consequences of a nuclear explosion on American soil - one that could happen in just 33 minutes.
North Korea is dismantling its nuclear arsenal and Iran doesn't have one. Nor does it have anything close to the technology to land a warhead on American soil. So it's on to the next on the list - Russia. The website's blog today bears out that emphasis, with most posts about Russia. One that's worth noting, though, extols the need for treaty-breaking space-based weaponry.
The Washington Times reports that the Pentagon is on board to study space-based missile defenses. Congress appropriated $5 million for the endeavor.
Given the ever expanding threat of nuclear proliferation, the U.S. needs to be prepared to defend on all fronts, including protecting satellites. Developing wide-ranging protection should be a top priority. An anonymous defense official said, “It’s really the only way to defend the U.S. and its allies from anywhere on the planet.
This exposes yet another administration fib - that space-based weapons aren't being considered because they'd present a clear red line to Russia and seriously escalate tensions between the two nations, probably triggering a new arms race and a return to the Cold War for real. This is, after all, the same administration that unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001.
Space-based weapons are a red line for much of the American public too, since many are aware of just how destabilizing such a move would be and few want to return to the dark days of the nuclear clock. The conservative think-tank proposal for dealing with American public perceptions is a simple one. Misdirection.
Arms control advocates are currently focused on preventing the weaponization of space. They base their proposals on the assertion that space is not already weaponized,[23] which is valid only if properly defining the term "space weapons" is irrelevant to the exercise of controlling them.[24]
The fact is that space was weaponized when the first ballistic missile was deployed, because ballistic missiles travel through space on their way to their targets.
... Congress needs to reject the charge that space-based ballistic missile defense interceptors would constitute an unprecedented move by the U.S. to weaponize space. It can do so by adding a preamble to the amendment to provide more robust funding for construction of a space test bed.
This preamble should take the form of a congressional finding that the deployment of ballistic missiles weaponized space
Umm, yeah. That'll convince the Russians not to join in the wingnut arms race. And this is the same as hanging Reaganesque "Brilliant Pebbles" weaponry permanently in space, as the Heritage folks advise, because?
But let's cut to the chase, shall we? The wingnuts don't want missile defense systems to protect against rogue states. They want them so that the U.S. can attack Russia or China with a better chance of success than Russia or China could attack America.
Is there a potential threat of space wars taking place in the near future? It is a distinct possibility due to the actions of China and Russia. The two nations are attempting to update the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to limit the ability of the U.S. to develop and employ space-based missile defense systems. Is this just a noble effort on the part of China and Russia to declare the use of space for peaceful purposes alone, or are they individually and possibly together seeking to create a situation that would limit the U.S.'s research and development of space-based missile defense systems while giving them the opportunity to get up to speed with similar systems of their own. The space wars have begun to take shape with China and Russia seeking the update of this 41 year old treaty.
... What China and Russia are really seeking with the updating of this treaty is more time to research, develop, and test their own missile defense systems. They are highly threatened that the U.S. has not only nuclear weapons, but missile defense installations that are capable of eliminating any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon delivered in a ballistic missile from anyone, including Russia, China, or ? China and Russia know they are behind in the development of these missile defense systems, and they want to limit the U.S. any way possible to allow them the time necessary to catch up.
What exactly is wrong with those nations having their own ABM shields - or even sharing one with the U.S. and other nations? Wouldn't that protect everyone from rogue states?
No, the neocon think-tanks who are advising the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are quite clearly looking for a U.S. first strike capability as part of their dreams of American hegemony. That's incredibly dangerous. The Russians and Chinese know this already - they can read. The only people who don't are the bulk of the American populace.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
1984
American Hegemony? Ha!!
WE got the Hegemony on debt, stupidity, superstition, people in prison,
overpaid athletes (the last two dovetail) and aircraft carriers.
"There will be more wars..." McCain quote.
It's really a sales pitch.
I guarantee you Obama, when elected, will kill people with our
military besides Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it.
I don't believe it.
Rather than project your hopes unto Obama, listen to what he says and has said.
Leadership (with whom I sometimes disagree) is right.
Although I am afraid that I agree with you, we surely stand a better chance of peace with Obama than with McCain.
Obviously, but the beast must be fed and the beast requires billions of dollars and the lives of young lower and lower middle class Americans.
from without but from within, by powerful corporations and their stooge politicians.
What has happened on Wall Street is prelude.
When the stupid, greedy, evil fucks self-destruct, they pull down everything.
Old General Eisenhower wasn't kidding.
He warned us.
We Ignored him
Carrol Quigley outlined it in Tragedy and Hope
We Ignored him.
We watched a President assassinated by a TEAM.
We ignored it.
We were lied into Vietnam - costing 58,000 Americans, and 3+ Million Vietnamese
and we did nothing about it.
We saw two planes take down three buildings.
And we believed it was a boogey man in a cave and 19 incompetent Moooselimssszzz.
We were lied into another war in Iraq...
WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP!!!
I'll second that.
and ill third that! afganistans a fools game , but a warmonger and war corporations wet dream! obamas a tool of the corporations who make war for profit, its another vietnam that cant be won, its the graveyard of ignorent fools!
It' bad enough living in a world where missles could fall down like rain. Putting weapons in space is downright insanity(as if nuclear weapons arn't insane enough).
Follow the defense money.
Russia invades Georgia
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/world/europ...
THIS DEAL BETWEEN THE U.S. AND POLAND (DEFENSE CONTRACTORS) WAS SIGNED SOON AFTER THE INVASION OF GEORGIA. THIS CLOSED THE DEAL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7561926.stm
US and Poland sign defence deal
A ground-based interceptor is test launched in California (Image: Missile Defense Agency)
The missiles would be similar to those based in Alaska and California
Poland has signed a preliminary deal with the US on plans to host part of its new missile defence shield.
Under the agreement, the US will install 10 interceptor missiles at a base on the Baltic coast in return for help strengthening Polish air defences.
Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080812_...
Is that Russia did NOT....I repeat did NOT invade Geogia. Even the war criminal Colin Powell realizes this (hopefully he's giving Obama a tutorial to set him straight).
Until we get the facts straight by shining some TRUTH on past and current history (in the making), our foreign policy will fail us miserably.
It is really not in Russia or anyone else's best interests for nuclear weapons to ever be used. Period.
And, as Maddow says, "one last thing"...when "Leadership" says that if elected President Obama WILL be responsible for killing human beings on foreign soil, I agree. He already has his sites clearly set on Afghanistan (dumb idea) and Pakistan (dumber idea...they have nukes). And believe me, innocent men, women and children WILL be killed on his watch.
n/t
you are right ...responded to
Peter King has been King of these tactics for years.
Who can forget this doozy: http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/R...
Or his unquestioning support for Bush and the Iraq War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oS1nm0fJ8
please consider supporting our campaign, Graham Long, www.GrahamLong2008.com
Surely Damned Ignorant
ray gunn nearly bankrupted us paying for these programs that never worked.
We're so weakened already economically that this could do us in.
)O(
True, but when was the last time the gov said no to a bit o military pork?
...For a kosher government!!!
it was successful in establishing that the job of defending against a massive attack was impossible. On the other had I am personally rather grateful that the money spent developing angular tracking algorithms and control systems made the laser surgery that has largely restored my sight so successful. That was one hell of a spin-off.
that was the point of the bush crime family
bring back the military industrial complex
i grew up during the height of the cold war, the fear mongering of commies, the fear of nuclear destruction
why in gods name would a sane person want to return to that?
n/t
the ONLY reason
bring back?
they never went away.
do you think the MIC only uses Republicans to achieve its ends?
Do you think the MIC would really let Obama be an agent of Change if he wasn't already in the bag?
When news like this leaves you down and out
When you're on the street
When tears are in your eyes
Don't worry, be happy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2jiqvQLiug
that this whole missile defense system as proposed is nothing more than make work for defense contractors. I won't argue with your political analysis since the very idea of some rogue nation spending ridiculous sums of money to develop both weapons and a working delivery system is frankly ludicrous. The idea that someone would launch a missile whose source can not fail to be established and which invites massive retaliation is so foolish that no thinking person would believe it. But the Russians must also know that even the most advanced missile systems proposed would require a very large number of launch vehicles to hope for a reasonable probability of knocking out a single in bound missile and that success would depend on destruction before it mirved. In essence it represents no real threat to the Russians either. It does represent, as an idea, the perpetuation of the cold war thinking which is what I think the Russians find most disturbing. Technically it is a very expensive joke.
for which the US must bear the brunt of the responsibility. What took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October '62 as described in the Western press (for the most part) was the exact opposite of what happened. The reason for the installation of the missiles in Cuba -- Castro was hamstrung as his economy was seriously dependent on Soviet financial support -- was IN REACTION to the US co-opting Turkey to allow for the installation of US missiles targeted for major Soviet cities and industrial centres because the American ICBMS didn't have sufficient range if launched from American soil. Kruschev was the one who acted in a sane way in contrast to the Kennedy bravado and duplicitous machismo. Read some Bertrand Russell on those terrifying days. He even called for Krushchev to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Bertie was a gem -- and he sure didn't tolerate any bullshit.
Your not supposed to mention that. Officially there was no quid pro quo for removing those Turkish based missiles.
let's not do away with the arrow of time. Who did what first and who reacted? Not much more to say.
that the Berlin blockade was one of the first engagements of the cold war and it was responded to with admirable restraint by means of the airlift. A demonstration of soft power if you will.
In order to be elected President of the United States, you have to be willing to kill people.
Every presidential candidate has said so. Except maybe some who lost.
but then so do soldiers and police officers. The difference between good ones and bad ones is the reasons they have for taking life. They don't all suck.
n/t
And your point is?
Soldiers kill to survive but also to burn off adrenalin.
about Russia or any other terrestrial power. It is in business to dominate near-earth space. Here's the current Space Command website. Here's the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) site on weapons in space. This is why we're persisting in "theater missile defense system" deployment in Poland, Taiwan, and around the world.
The idea is to command all the SATELLITE traffic in the world. Which is why the US brass shit bricks last year when the Chinese shot dow a satellite, demonstrating they're capacity to compete in that sphere, and why the USer brass HAD to shoot down one of ours later
In case you were wondering: The obvious response? The entire world allies against us, formally or not. Which "proves" that we must arm even further to the teeth...which will foster more nuclear proliferation to non-nuclear powers and build-up by other nuclear powers. I'm sure it will all turn out OK. Continue shopping.
There won't be a Normandy beach rescue for America.
The military industrial complex and its private goons, will see to that.
Why don't we start up a fund to print and distribute a copy of The Butter Battle Book to everyone that supports an arms race. At the least maybe it'll convince them on working on something really really small.
The military industrial complex never left.
Privatization of the military began in earnest under Clinton.
The propaganda machine also never left. The war mongering against al Qaeda is getting old so they want to ramp up some new boogeymen.
It is a proven fact that you need boogeymen to make the WARBUCKS flow. So everything old is new again.
Reagan's Star Wars didn't work but the Soviets thought that it might and they spent heavily on that assumption. They went bankrupt.
Missile defense this time will not work, except to make a whole lot of profit for the Corporations involved.
Maybe the Russians will be fooled again.
It is a Jobs Program. Not a particularly efficient one, though extremely lucrative.
We are tapped out as a country and we are going to follow the Soviets into the trash heap of history.
Even so, as Chalmers Johnson says here, no President has stood up to the Military Industrial Complex.
That is why Obama incorrectly says Russia invaded Georgia. He has his marching orders. The RULING ELITE will let him PLAY Commander in Chief as long as the War Bucks keep flowing.
When we go bankrupt which we will, the jig will be up. It is coming too soon.
The military/industrial/media complex has been with us since WWII and has been directing policy and making a privileged few incredibly wealthy.
Alert
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/10/23/...
The Goldwaters Endorse Obama
this smacks of military complex making
sure that if/when the iraq/afganistan war(s)
are ended, they will have that next multi-billion
dollar contract in their pocket.
fuck the reichwingneocons and military complex.
wake up America, military corps want
ALL your money and your future.
calm down
wait for Obama to be elected president
everything you've hoped for will come true
just cool it
We will find out soon enough if President Obama will be strong enough to fend off these bottom feeders, and give the nation a chance at salvaging itself.
With the severe neglect that must be addressed in the face of serious financial constraints and urgent energy and climate issues to tackle, there will be no room for these antagonistic money pit programs in which we supposedly scare our enemies into compliance by bleeding ourselves to death in front of them.
"there will be no room for these antagonistic money pit programs in which we supposedly scare our enemies into compliance by bleeding ourselves to death in front of them."
You MUST be joking.
The programs to be scrapped are social welfare stuff. Cuts in Social Security services, Medicare, that sort of thing.
NOBODY will EVER reduce the Military budget. Not McC(umstain) certainly, not Obama, not Jesus christ his risen, glorious self...
The only way to reduce the military budget is to quit paying taxes.
Really. Really?
Ending the war in Iraq should do a little something to reduce that budget.
Time will tell, but I do believe Obama WILL reduce the defense budget.
Quit Paying Taxes? Really?
Best of luck to you, MT. You know, there's no Internet in prison.
Anyone who is over 50 years old should recognize this for what it is -- and obviously. "33 minutes" is another variant on the Machiavellian/Hobbesian idea that the teeming unwashed must be controlled by means of -- and primarily by -- fearmongering. Take no solace in the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) rationale provided by the failed elites in both countries during the cold war and promulgated/supported by a fawning, for-profit press. This madness should be pointed out for what it is: an insane, rational abstraction that could turn into reality in a very short period of time. Why the common folk in any nation buy into this death culture is beyond me. Life is too fucking short to hide under a desk and grab your ankles.
would send more troops to Afghanistan?
bailout Wall Street bankers?
immunize TELCOs from wiretap immunity?
If you answer yes to each of these quesitons, vote Obama.
one expedient for ensuring that the person who is elected always votes in accordance with your conscious. Run for office. I too was disappointed in Obama's FISA vote but I got over it.
I first got ill with Obama when he voted for the patriot act, then he voted for the homegrown terror act, and I got really sick. Then came telecom immunity and I had to go to the doctor. then he voted for the bailout, and now its terminal.
...but at least he is better than McCain.
I too was disappointed in Obama's FISA vote but I got over it.
How noble of you!
I didn't. And won't.
That little move cost him any possibility I could trust him, ever, to do the right thing.
He talks a good show, I'll admit.
But when has he done "the right thing?"
he's a populist and a SOMEWHAT principled one to boot. However, it is absolutely unnerving to think that the electorate in a democracy takes for granted that those who are campaigning for elected office will lie to their fellow citizens and flip-flop on major policies after they are sworn in. Can't wrap my little pea brain around that one. Place de Concordes all around, I say, and "Off with their melons" if they do. Obama may be better than most but that remains to be seen.
Obama thought that the bill had been sufficiently modified and had enough oversight built in to be acceptable. Personally I didn't think so but then he had briefings to which neither you nor I were privileged and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Biden's recent and ominous remarks didn't even bother me that much, to tell the truth. The same would be true even if Hillary Clinton was to be your next president.
I basically trust Barack Obama's judgment however and his intrinsic and apparent love and respect for people worldwide.
McCain has never shown an inkling of such deep, human feelings, imo
How would Obama (or anybody) get elected if it did not appear that s/he would support the status quo?
I am not thrilled with Obama, but I fear the results of McCain appointing more Scalias.
Hell, I'd rather be voting Socialist but the prospect of a McCain/Palin Administration terrifies the shit outta me.
Think about that...The McCain-Palin administration.
Therefore, I vote Obama.
Missile defence will never, ever work. The Russians know this. Even the tests with solitary missiles have to be rigged to have any chance of working (and often don't). Trillions of dollars have/will be spent on a system that can be completely overloaded by a mass nuclear attack - even if it worked in the first place. It's all about fostering giant kickbacks to the defence industry. The best thing to do would be to scrap it completely.
Here are some ways to tell that this a load of bullshit.
1 The first strike from the Russians will come from the sea, sub launched missles that would take at most 15 min to hit their targets, the 33 min is what it would take from land based ICBMs. These missles would be impossible to hit, the only hope is to hit the sub BEFORE it launchs.
2 The sheer numbers that the Russians would be able to put up would overwhelm any, ANY, missle defense that we would be able to put up in the next 25years.By the time that we would have a the tech to stop their missles, they will be on a new generation of missles that could defeat the system.
3 Star wars doesn't work, never has. This is just some defense contractors getting a payday, if it was a real option you could bet the house that the pentagon would be screaming 24/7 about the need for this program.
4 Nukes have been viewed as revenge weapons by everybody, USA and Russia, first strikes with nukes is only mentioned by the insane. One nuke with a yield of 5megatons would cause world wide problems, now 1000 nukes is an end of the human race, so a first strike would mean suicide, and yes you would need to launch that many nukes to make sure that you hit all the targets.
I could keep going on about this but just to say when you hear people talk about first strike or missle defense as an option, set your phasers to kill, fuck stun, and erase the crazies from the gene pool.
what our weaknesses are. It sounds a hell of a lot more like what McCain tried to imply, i.e., that Obama was telegraphing strategy by relating his position on getting Bin Laden in Pakistan or all those other innuendos of feeding the enemies relevant information. Hell, the real enemies are the Heritage Foundation, Townhall, and National Review. With people like these, who needs foreign enemies.
I feel sorry for the poor bacteria that will have to survive a post-nuclear world. It'll be tough for a thousand-millenium or two, but eventually they will re-emerge as the pre-imminent life form on the planet. Oops, I meant the ONLY life form on the planet.
Only an idiot, yearning for total annihilation, would launch a nuclear device on the scale of this article.
The Star Wars defense system is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.
Nothing in SDI can stop a sea-launched cruise missile from a submarine.
Russia has plenty of SLBMs and SLCMs ready to go. The launch window is about 2 minutes from 30 miles off any coastline. No Patriot or other anti-ballistic missile system can affect them.
This was clearly exposed about 20 years ago in a Scientific American article.
This isn't about hegmony, it's about cash cow feeding the defense industry.
The war on terror does very little for Boeing and General Dynamics, but plenty for Halliburton and Blackwater.
What the defense industry needs is a big-time boogie man to scare the bejeebers out of Americans into loosening their pockets of cash.
China is no threat, because we are their fat cow feeding them with US dollars. Iran and N. Korea are a joke.
Russia is too smart to begin lobbing ICBMs our way without reason.
It's all about neo-cons trying to keep the cash flowing into the defense industry at a time when Americans are going to be very hard pressed to approve further defense industry toys and projects.
SDI has always been a cash cow for defense industries. No rogue missile has ever been launched, yet $20 - $50 million dollars a year for "Research and Development", along with a few failed launches is tons of fun for neo-con nutjobs.
Even Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that SDI has a glaring hole in cruise missile offensive weaponry.
The people who should be complaining are the ones who bought this stupid missile defense system that won't ever work.
the period between the ABM treaty (1972) and Reagan's "Star Wars" (1983) as an "on spec" period (Which I do), then the ABM/Missile Defense/Star Wars/etc., etc. program has been running pretty steadily for over 50 years.
The idea of deploying part of it in space is at least as old as Reagan's first iteration of it in '83.
In a lengthy NY Times piece from the late 90s, Clinton clearly didn't like the idea of it and was obviously relieved when the third test failed as that meant he could turn his attention to other things. Bush has been running the program with a lot more enthusiasm and energy, he's just outlawed any official mention of how well it's doing (Very poorly, not because of incompetence or lack of money, but because it's a vastly huge, complicated and expensive task).
These guys aren't recommending that the US initiate anything it hasn't been trying very hard to do for the last half-century.
if y'all want to read some really sharp and on-point criticisms of the system, it's hard to do better than a 1968 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Midyear sometime, June, I think), they lay out why the system is an awful idea, no matter how well or poorly it works. Essentially, it gives unwarranted confidence and encourages a first strike, as an attacker will feel at least partially invulnerable. The MAD theory is a MUCH more assured peace-keeping doctrine.
And actually... New
Thu, 10/23/2008 - 20:19 — Rich2506
The MAD theory is a MUCH more assured peace-keeping doctrine.
This?
http://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/alfre...
Login or Register to post comments.