War in the US; when will it come?

[vector7]

It all started with the Clinton Administration in their second term in 1997...

Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine

From November/December 1997

THE CLINTON administration quietly made a significant change in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence. In a December 23 interview, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons against a chemical or biological weapons attack.

New Guidelines

Due to its highly classified nature, many specific details about the PDD have not been made public. Nevertheless, Bell confirmed that "We have made an important change in terms of strategic nuclear doctrine in reorienting our presidential guidance away from any sense that you could fight and win a protracted nuclear war to a strategic posture that focuses on deterrence."

The administration made the decision to rewrite the old nuclear guidelines early in 1997. At that time, General John Shalikashvili, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to President Clinton that the United States could not reduce its nuclear arsenal to the level that was being discussed for START III (2,000 to 2,500 deployed strategic warheads) and carry out the objectives of the 1981 nuclear guidelines. Bell pointed out that this assumed that the goals of the old guidelines could ever have been realized—a skepticism that has been voiced by former Reagan administration officials. Hence, one key factor influencing the administration's decision to rewrite the old guidelines was that they were not compatible with the U.S. objective of achieving further strategic force reductions with the Russians.

Moreover, the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, Bell said the 1981 directive "reads like a document you would expect to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not something that you would want operative today...."

Launch on Warning

Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.


Now the Obama Administration had eagerly taken up the scepter and is hard at work to getting this done and more.

Which brings me to the question...

If the United States has been directed to absorb the first strike...how many hits could it take and still have a surviving credible deterrence?

[vector7]

How Empires Collapse – A Orderly Path to Conclusion?

Posted on August 5, 2013 by Martin Armstrong

A number of people have asked what does the future really hold with the civil unrest/war cycle turning up next year. Government NEVER collapses because of revolution. Let’s get this one very straight. Any government as long as it is strong will crush into dust all resistance. The key to the collapse of empires is the die from inside normally by their own hand. Communism fell of its own accord. We did not do a damn thing. Communism was economically unsustainable. As that worked its way through the veins of power, their economies simply imploded.






This is why I am warning that socialism is collapsing. Government is hunting down every penny it can find. It will destroy the economy in the process and that is the ultimate irony. Western governments are simply unsustainable. We cannot constantly confiscate assets and pour them into interest payments and pensions of state employees to sustain government. The economy grows weaker and the revenues decline as government becomes more and more aggressive.




The Barbarians were at the gates of Rome for more than a century. They could not make any headway until the 3rd century when the finances of Rome were imploding. Undermine the economy, you weaken the government, and then it falls. The rise of people to arms is NEVER the actual event the changes the cycle. That is the final act that completes the cycle. The cycle is already declining and then when the people cannot take it any more, they will rise up. They get the credit, but in fact, the government is declining just as we saw in China. When the man stood before the tanks, it did not take long for the government to really fail. When Yeltsin also stood on the tanks in Moscow, the end was there and then.






Revolution is the final act, never the first. Here is a famous Maryland Propaganda Note intended to justify war because of the injustice of the King. The king of England played a game with the American colonies. Anything they bought from England had to be paid in silver or gold. However, whatever they sold to England was paid in copper. Hence, he was extorting the American Colonies and bleeding them dry. First comes the economic decline – then comes the Revolution that is the final straw. So what must take place FIRST is the economic collapse and that will then lead to discontent. Why do you think they are passing all these laws one step at a time that follows a planned path only an idiot cannot see because they do not wish to.

[American Patriot]

So.... the government wants itself to collapse, so the people will revolt, so the government can put down the revolt - or fail and what?

I'm confused here.

[vector7]

I actually think we did do something about Communism.

If Carter had won the election I don't believe Communism would have fallen as it did.

That being said I don't think Communism totally fell in 1989 within the former Soviet Union but hibernated underground while quietly working on it's technology to take us on at some point in future strategically after we've been weakened.

I think the Communists and Progressives here want to remove the founding articles that grant us our freedoms.

They've already sworn their allegiances to the United Nations and want to see America reduced to a nation state with no freedoms but what they grand and administer with complete control to manage population as they see fit.

[American Patriot]

If the UN can gain total control the world will be in utter chaos inside of a year.

They have no power and without the US to back the UN they are nothing but a load of feckless refugees from bad ideas for society.

[Ryan Ruck]

So.... the government wants itself to collapse, so the people will revolt, so the government can put down the revolt - or fail and what?

I'm confused here.

Cloward and Piven Strategy

Collapse the system to rebuild it in their image.

[American Patriot]

Ok, I'm not confused then

That's what I thought.

[vector7]

Iran general: No doubt Israel and America will be attacked

9:59 PM 11/09/2013

Even before the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 world powers ended in Geneva early Sunday with no deal, an Iranian general lashed out at America Saturday and warned both the U.S. and Israel that they will be attacked.

According to Fars News Agency, the regime’s outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, said “America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel).”

Jazayeri said Israel is pulling the strings of Washington and “the American government is one of the most hated and evil governments in the world.”
The general mocked President Obama’s position that the military option remains on the table over Iran’s nuclear development. “If America had the ability and the will for war, it would allow no doubt in attacking Syria. America will soon find out that Iran’s power cannot be ignored.”
The Geneva negotiations ended early Sunday with no deal after three days of high-level talks when France questioned the initial draft and if it went far enough in curbing Iran’s illicit nuclear program. Iran and the 5+1 world powers are to meet again on November 20.

As reported by The Daily Caller on Friday, Iran remained insistent on major relief from sanctions, especially in the banking and oil sectors, as well as an acceptance by world powers of its right to enrich uranium. Iran continued to refuse to give in on a temporary freeze on the construction of its plutonium reactor in Arak, which is due to go live next year and could provide Iran a second path to nuclear weapons. Another sticking point for Iran is the demand to give up its stock of 20 percent enriched uranium, a key step to nuclear weaponization.

Meanwhile, Mohsen Rafiqdoost, a former minister of the Guards and a long-time regime official engaged in buying arms on the black market, also talked of Israel’s destruction in an interview with Basij News. He praised Hassan Tehrani Moghadam, the brain behind Iran’s ballistic program who was assassinated in 2011, for designing missiles through reverse engineering and predicted that achievement will enable Iran to obliterate Israel.
Last week, Iran state television aired part of an hour-long animated documentary showing how the country’s missile attack could destroy Israel.

These threats are underscored by a report in March 2013 of an Iranian site that houses over 380 missile depots and launching pads, providing evidence that Iran has long been planning for a major confrontation with Israel and the West. The report also said regime scientists are working on a nuclear warhead at this site.

“(The satellite images) suggest the possibility that Iran may, in fact, be further along in its nuclear weapons program than is generally assumed,” said David Trachtenberg, who for 30 years served in the national security policy field and who, as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, played a leadership role in nuclear forces and arms-control policy. “It is clear they have gone to great lengths to bury and protect high-value assets at this site, which also complicates the possibility of direct military action and illustrates the risks of allowing years to pass while hoping diplomacy will work. An accelerating train is harder to slow and takes longer to stop. These images reinforce my concern that Iranian nuclear progress is accelerating.”

“(This) imagery strongly suggests that Iran is working on what we used to call an ‘objective force.’ That is the objective of a deployed force of nuclear weapons on mobile missiles, normally based in deep underground sites for survivability against even nuclear attack, capable of rapid deployment,” said Fritz Ermarth, who served in the CIA and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council.


“This open-source analysis by itself illustrates that Iran is very serious about building survivable facilities for its nuclear enterprise,” said Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and an expert on nuclear strategy and weapons who served on several strategic congressional commissions and in the CIA.
One of the America’s foremost experts on nuclear weapons, who could not be named but who served at the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency and who inspected more than 200 tunnel structures of Russian nuclear test sites as well as Russian operational facilities and silos, viewed the imagery of Iran’s facility.

“The site is similar to a common approach by several other nuclear-capable countries which have used advanced design in hardening these types of tunnels or garages for a quick deployable system,” he said. “I understand exactly what Iran has at the site … (including) a very important part of the structures … the apparent hardened underground stub tunnels for secure storage of mobile systems which can be quickly moved to launching sites … and it is very scary because its defeat may not be as easy as attacking it with a couple bombers, even if they have nuke weapons. This layout is very scary because it is … ready for the operational weapon systems to be installed, and then they are ready to take on the world.”

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

[vector7]

Potassum Iodide

Solicitation Number: 14-284-SOL-0015A
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Office: Program Support Center
Location: Supply Service Center

• Print
• LinkCopy or Bookmark this Page
  Copy the url below for a direct link to this page.
  
  
  Bookmark this page by right-clicking here and choosing "Bookmark This Link..."
  
  

• Notice Details
• Packages
• Interested Vendors List

Original SynopsisDec 06, 2013 3:35 pm

Solicitation Number: 14-284-SOL-0015A Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Synopsis: Added: Dec 06, 2013 3:35 pm (i) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for a commercial item prepared in accordance with FAR Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. (ii) The solicitation number is 14-284-SOL-0015A. This solicitation is issued as an Request for Quote (RFQ). (iii) The corresponding NAICS code is 325412 and the small business standard size is 750 employees. (iv) The contract line item number, item, quantity and unit of measure is : Line No. 001; potassium iodide tablet, 65mg, unit dose package of 20s; 700,000 packages (of 20s) (v) Delivery is required on or before February 1, 2014. Delivery will be made to: DHHS, SSC, Bldg #5 Receiving Dock, PErry Point,MD 21902 (vi) The provisions of FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items; 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items; and FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial items apply to this acquisition. The Government will awad a contract resulting from this synopsis/solicitation to the responsible offerror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and provides the best value to the Governemnt - price and other factors considered. (vii) Quotes are due Tuesday, december 23, 2013 by 3:30 pm, EST, electronicallyto the Contracting Officer at timothy.bouchelle@psc.hhs.gov. (viii) Contact Timothy R. Bouchelle, Contracting Officer, at timothy.bouchelle@psc.hhs.gov regarding this solicitation number 14-284-SOL0015A. Phone inquiries can be made at 410-642-1382. Contracting Office Address: Building 14 Perry Point, Maryland 21902 Place of Performance: DHHS SSC, Bldg #5 Receiving Dock Perry Point, Maryland 21902 United States Primary Point of Contact.: Timothy R. Bouchelle timothy.bouchelle@psc.hhs.gov Phone: 4106421382

[American Patriot]

Very interesting.

[MinutemanCO]

Indeed

[Toad]

I guess it's time to get some potassium iodide before Febuary 1st 2014.

[vector7]

Are we on the brink of war? Academic sparks debate by drawing comparisons between 1914 past and 2014 present




A CENTURY ago, a simple assassination was enough to topple a tenuous balance between the old and new worlds. The resulting war killed millions and spanned the globe. Is history about to repeat itself?
The year was 1914. The world was experimenting with economic globalisation.

Optimists believed this new world economy would eliminate war.

But the concept proved to be in conflict with old notions of empire and fresh attitudes of expansionism.
There was friction between the industrial and military powers of the "old" world and the ambitions of the revitalised "new" economies.

Add a century to the date and ask yourself: does this scenario sound familiar?

According to Oxford professor of international history Margaret MacMillan, it does. Her essay addressing China's recent flexing of its economic and military muscles has sent ripples around the world.

And she's not the only one. Diplomats, academics, authors and journalists across the globe have reached the same conclusion.

And so has China.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it".

Really?

Perhaps

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme," quipped Mark Twain.
Here are some of the verses:

- Fading empires: Fearing the future and grasping at what they have

- A "place in the sun": With new power comes big ambitions

- Global 'flashpoints': Rogue states and disputed regions

- Globalisation: With all its benefits and pressures

- Arms race: New technology negates old might

The rhythm is there. The tone is there. The tense is now.

Here's how the two "14s" compare:

The rise and fall of the American republic ... Close parallels have been drawn between the decline of the British Empire and the waning influence of the United States. Source: Supplied


FADING EMPIRE
What had been the world's sole economic and military superpower for almost a century suddenly found its authority being challenged. This was largely its own fault. The industrial revolution that gave it strength and arrogance led to expensive technological breakthroughs that rendered its own military might largely obsolete seemingly overnight.

This exposed it to a new arms race and economic competition it could ill afford.

A century ago, this was the British Empire.

Now, is it the United States?

In 2013 the world's sole superpower suffered a near mortal blow to its credibility. The leaks of Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have exposed the nation's rampant exceptionalism.

Its diplomatic and moral credentials are in tatters. Yet it still maintains its stance as the world's moral compass.
It's a nation facing as much internal tension as it is international, as Obama seeks to impose universal healthcare on a suspicious population.

It's a nation that criticises the likes of China for their spying activities while amassing an almost incomprehensible amount of information on millions of individuals worldwide, including its own population.

It's a nation that raises its voice in outrage at acts of terror as its own drones bomb Arab weddings.

Now, for the first time in more than a decade, its enormous military is not at war. It's a monolithic institution that must find a new cause through which it can justify continued immunity from looming budget-cuts.

The United States has been living beyond its means for far too long. But can it bring itself to face reality?

With dwindling resources and ballooning debts, the United States appears to feel the need to prove to itself that it is still the world's benevolent judge, jury and executioner.

Just what it is prepared to do to maintain this illusion has already been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Bright future ... A growing economy. A proud history. An expanding military. Territorial ambitions. Are we talking 1914 Germany or 2014 China? Source: Supplied

A PLACE IN THE SUN
Back then, the new world power was Germany. It had modernised its economy. It had secured its finances. What it didn't have was empire or international influence. What it didn't have was the resources to feed its demanding industry. It also had a long list of grudges relating to historic wars and territorial compromises. As it grew stronger, Germany grew more demanding. A series of provocative diplomatic "incidents" were met with uncertainty and appeasement by the rest of the world. This gave the Kaiser the confidence and arrogance which would lead to war in 1914.

Are there parallels with China?

Yes.

Its economy is growing like no other. Its industry is world-leading. Its resources are being stretched. Its military might is growing.

It's new muscle they're already flexing.

Their ambitions towards the South and East China Seas are open knowledge. The aggressive expansion of an "air-defence zone" over islands claimed by Japan and South Korea is just the latest "testing" of international resolve. As was the near-ramming of a US cruiser "observing" China's new aircraft carrier.

But China has grounds for resentment.

It has been the victim of a string of wars few other nations have cared about. It has been exploited and repressed through a series of treaties taking advantage of its internal turmoils.

Now, it is being forced to "fit" into a world system based on Western European values. This is something that rankles an extreme national pride based on its millennia-old culture.

And it doesn't have to put up with such treatment any more.

Then there's India.

It is a nation of a billion people. Its economy is going from strength to strength. Its military is expanding - particularly its navy.

It's just another "upstart" that US military strategists have to contend with.


Tumultuous times ... Global instability and civil unrest are common themes linking us to times a century past. Source: Supplied

GLOBAL 'FLASHPOINTS'
Today we call it terrorism. A century ago it had another name: Anarchy

Car bombs. Political assassinations. Random acts of politically-motivated violence. All filled the headlines then as they do today.

All contributed to - and stemmed from - social unrest that surpassed borders, languages and religions.
Then, as now, the "lone wolf" had the power to change the world.

Then, as now, one well-place bullet at the right time in the right environment with a suitable frenzied response could have international implications.

Then, it was the assassination of an Austrian Archduke by a Bosnian anarchist movement which triggered a cascade of failed diplomacy. This provided the "excuse" needed for war.

And nations still have territorial ambitions.

In 1914 it was Alsace-Lorraine.

It was a lush territory on the border between France and Germany that the nations had been fighting over for centuries.

In 2014, there is Taiwan.

It's China's major embarrassment. It's the last bastion of the "old China" Chairman Mao sought to overthrow in 1949.

It's still there. China still regards it as its own territory and its own people - and that the whole matter is an "internal" issue the rest of the world should butt-out of.

The United States, of course, refuses. As the world's policeman, it sees enlightened self-interest in keeping Taiwan's economic strength out of China's embrace. Taiwan is also an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" from which the US can exert regional influence.

Japan's ancient enmity with China also must not be forgot. The brutal occupation of Chinese territories in the 1930s (resulting in the murderous 'rape of Nanking') is still an open wound. Japan's ongoing denial of its past errors has done nothing to help this tension.

And then there are the alienated ambitions scattered around the rest of the world. Russia. South America. North Korea.

All are "rogue states" of increasing power and confidence.

All are capable of starting a conflagration that can encompass the globe.


Power shift ... The United States, for so long the world’s economic “safe haven” is now itself deeply in debt. Is China taking its place at the centre of economic influence? Source: AFP

GLOBALISATION
Then, the British Empire was at the centre of the world's economy. It had been the first to embrace the industrial revolution. Combined with its naval dominance, the little cluster of islands conquered an empire that would cover almost a third of the globe.

It set the standards for a new world; a world of advancing medicine, technology and communications.
It grew complacent in its might.

Other nations began to modernise and reform their economies as the British Empire stagnated.
Sound like the United States?

The industrial strength of the "New World" has propelled us all into the space and information ages.
But the very arms-race which caused the USSR's economy to implode and propelled the US into sole-superpower status has come back to haunt it.

The US never lost its obsession with more and more expensive weapons. And it's been prolific in their use, with a string of "little wars" since 1990.
Now there is a new arms race. And its centred of Asia.

The "pivot" by the US to shift most of its existing forces into the region is just that superpower's first reaction.
But the US faces potentially crippling challenges.

Its invention of the internet has also had unexpected repercussions, propelling the world towards a globalised economy far faster than anticipated.

As a result, the United States is in debt. Deeply.

And its major creditor is China.

It's an unstable relationship that is causing jitters in the globalised economies of nations the world over.

And China's economy continues to grow as that of the United States' contracts.

Such a shift in strength can, and will, send seismic shocks around the globe.

Technological race ... The pace of the adoption of new technology is faster than ever before, with new products obsolete even before they enter production. Source: Supplied

ARMS RACE
Then, England ruled the waves.

Her vast fleet was unmatched in size and strength. It plied the seven seas with confidence and impunity.

Then, the Royal Navy invented the "Dreadnought" -- a warship like no other.

Overnight, the investment of decades had been rendered obsolete.

Unintentionally, Britain had levelled the playing field.

A new and incredibly expensive race to build the biggest and best navy began.

All this took place even as such mighty ships were being rendered redundant:The rise of air power was taking place almost unnoticed.

Now, the United States rules the waves.

Her vast fleet is unmatched in size and strength. It plies the seven seas with confidence and impunity.

She has the added reassurance that her jets also rule the skies.

But the world is changing.

The trump-card of nuclear weapons is now part of the arsenal of a growing number of nations.

And is the potential of cheap, automated drones and missiles similar to that of the unrecognised power of the machinegun of 1914?

And what of cyber war? Just how much damage can computer-based attacks inflict on a nation?

Unfortunately, it will probably take a major war for the world to find out.

[vector7]

Nuclear War Survival Skills

Cresson H. Kearny

Ch. 2: Warnings and Communications

....

Strategic warning is based on observed enemy actions
that are believed to be preparations for an attack. For example,
we would have strategic warning if powerful Russian armies were
advancing into western Europe and Soviet leaders were
threatening massive nuclear destruction....

http://www.oism.org/nwss/

[American Patriot]

Global Thermonuclear War thread I thought, had most of this listed. Maybe not?

[vector7]

http://www.omegashock.com/2014/04/08...ination-of-us/

War Is Not Far From Us – China Plans Extermination of US

April 8, 2014 by John Little - OmegaShock.com | 30 Comments

I have lived in the Republic of China (aka, Taiwan) for more than three years. My wife is Chinese, and most of my adult life has been spent in a place that is regularly threatened with extermination – Israel. While that may not make me qualified to analyze what I am about to tell you, it should help you understand the chill that I felt when I read an article written by Chi Haotian, Minister of National Defense for the People’s Republic of China until 2003.

That article was a chilling picture of China’s real plans for the future, a future that is nothing less than apocalypse.

————————————–

Subscribe to The Shock Letter and receive my articles in your inbox:

http://eepurl.com/Epr5H

————————————–
War Is Not Far From Us – China Plans Extermination of US

The article that I’m talking about was titled War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century. It was written in 2005, and I found it because Jeff Nyquist linked to it from his April 1st post (and Steve posted the link to Jeff).

I highly recommend that you read that article. It’s more than 9 thousand words long, so it will take you a while. But, you will get a picture of what lies at the core of Chinese policy, and you will see yet another reason why we are in real trouble.

If something doesn’t change… If something doesn’t stand in the way of China right now, the population of the United States will be exterminated, and the survivors will be enslaved. And, you need to understand that we are already nine years into his ten year forecast.

Verification

Now, you might be a bit skeptical about all this, so let me point out that (1) my wife did find the original Chinese article and (2) she did verify some of the elements of the article itself – such as the survey that Chi Haotian mentions. And, that survey that he is so proud of should worry you.

What the General Said

This survey indicated to General Chi that 80% of the Chinese population were willing to engage in the massacre of civilian populations. He was proud of that, and said this:

The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non-combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war.

The reason why he was so interested in this is spelled out in the next paragraph:

Actually, however, this is not our genuine intention. The purpose of the CCP Central Committee in conducting this survey is to probe people’s minds. We wanted to know: If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it?

Extermination

Well, General Chi was pleased to find that the people of China had given the Chinese government the green light to exterminate the people of North America.

Why do I say that he and the rest of the government of China are planning the extermination of the population of North America?

Well, he says this:

Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.

And then, he says this:

Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the white race. We the descendents of the Chinese nation are entitled to the possession of the land! It is said that the residents of the yellow race have a very low social status in United States. We need to liberate them. Second, after solving the ‘issue of America,’ the western countries in Europe would bow to us, not to mention to Taiwan, Japan and other small countries. Therefore, solving the ‘issue of America’ is the mission assigned to CCP members by history.

I don’t know about you, but it makes me nervous when generals with nuclear weapons talk about exterminating whole populations.

Are you ready for this?

http://www.omegashock.com/2014/04/09...e-awful-logic/

China Plans Extermination of US – The Awful Logic
April 9, 2014 by John Little - OmegaShock.com | 2 Comments

My revelation, yesterday, of China’s plans to exterminate North Americans was probably a shock. It certainly was a shock for me, when I first read about it. In fact, shock doesn’t really begin to describe how I felt.

Unfortunately, there is a terrible logic to these Chinese plans to exterminate the population of North America, and the Chinese have always had a brutally pragmatic way of looking at the world. My own wife – who is Chinese by culture and Taiwanese by birth – was completely unsurprised by Chi Haotian’s article. Chinese history is a tale of massacre, genocide and starvation on a massive scale. General Chi’s words are merely a reflection of that history.

This is the way China is, and we would do well to remember that.

————————————–

Subscribe to The Shock Letter and receive my articles in your inbox:

http://eepurl.com/Epr5H

————————————–
China Plans Extermination of US – The Awful Logic

The US has a history of miscalculation regarding Communist China. America failed to give vital aid to Chiang Kai-shek in his conflict with Mao Zedong. The US failed to understand China’s determination to keep American forces away from the Yalu River during the Korean War. In the ’90s and ’00s, America failed to understand China’s ability to take over and eliminate US manufacturing capability. And now, we have made yet another, ultimately fatal, miscalculation.

Would the Chinese people really take the awful step to exterminate the population of North America to give living space to the Chinese?

Well, actually… no.

We aren’t talking about the Chinese people. We’re talking about the Chinese government which is a completely different animal. And, let me be clear that we also aren’t talking about those ‘awful communists’ in Beijing. Communist ideology has nothing to do with this.

What we are talking about is a view of the world that is so brutally pragmatic that it can only be described as that of a psychopath. And, this psychopathic view has characterized generations of Chinese emperors and imperial governments. And, although we describe the Chinese government in Beijing as communist, the same imperial mentality is at work.

Lebensraum – Or, Living Space

The Chinese government knows that China desperately needs more living space, and they need it soon. And, the choice between 300 million Chinese and 300 million Americans is no choice at all.

Remember that this is what drove General Chi’s remarks in his speech/article:

The first issue is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany’s back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then.

The Nazi German Model

The Germany that General Chi refers to is Nazi Germany, and he indicates that the leadership of China has chosen Naziism the model for China. And they have vowed to not make the same mistakes that Hitler made.

Does that scare you?

It certainly scares me. But, coupling that model to an utterly pragmatic need for living space and resources… in addition to a psychopathic will to murder 300 million people to get them… well, that should terrify you.

But, let’s continue with General Chi’s analysis of the environmental factors driving China to genocide:

Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can’t be drunk without filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast, our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room.

Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse, once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It’s not that we haven’t paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue.

China understands population collapse, and they are prepared to do everything they can to avoid another one. The fact that they are following a Nazi German model means that they view this effort as one in which there can only be one winner – and, they are determined not to lose.

The Final Solution

But, let me add one more thing from General Chi:

But the term ‘living space’ (lebensraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don’t want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin’s new theory, ‘Human rights are just living rights,’ we only talk about ‘living,’ but not ‘space,’ so as to avoid using the term ‘living space.’ From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they could develop outside of China.

If Beijing wishes to lead the Chinese people outside of China, to develop outside of China, they have a problem – there is no living space in the world today that hasn’t been claimed by someone else. This means that someone is going to have to die for China to claim this space, and General Chi has laid his focus squarely upon North America and the extermination of 300 million Americans.

Just as Hitler had his ‘Final Solution‘ and the plan for the murder of the Jewish population, General Chi has his own ‘Final Solution’ for the people of North America. And, it should be clear to the General and the rest of the Chinese government that they have the perfect method for implementing this American Holocaust:

An EMP attack

And, they have the perfect tool for making this attack happen:

North Korea

[American Patriot]

Americans rising up against government

USAToday

America’s ruling class has been experiencing more pushback than usual lately. It just might be a harbinger of things to come.
First, in response to widespread protests last week, the Department of Homeland Security canceled plans to build a nationwide license plate database. Many local police departments already use license-plate readers that track every car as it passes traffic signals or pole-mounted cameras. Specially equipped police cars even track cars parked on the street or even in driveways.
The DHS put out a bid request for a system that would have gone national, letting the federal government track millions of people’s comings and goings just as it tracks data about every phone call we make. But the proposal was suddenly withdrawn last week, with the unconvincing explanation that it was all a mistake. I’m inclined to agree with TechDirt’s Tim Cushing, who wrote: “The most plausible explanation is that someone up top at the DHS or ICE suddenly realized that publicly calling for bids on a nationwide surveillance system while nationwide surveillance systems are being hotly debated was … a horrible idea.”

On Friday, after more public outrage, the Federal Communications Commission withdrew a plan to “monitor” news coverage at not only broadcast stations, but also at print publications that the FCC has no authority to regulate. The “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN (pronounced “sin”) involved the FCC sending people to question reporters and editors about why they chose to run particular stories. Many folks in and out of the media found it Orwellian.
How this program appeared was, like the DHS program, a bit of a mystery: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said: “This has never been put to an FCC vote; it was just announced.” But the blowback was sufficient to stop it for now.
Meanwhile, in Connecticut a massive new gun-registration scheme is also facing civil disobedience. As J.D. Tuccille reports: “Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as ‘assault weapons,’ and 2 million plus high-capacity magazines. … But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for ‘assault weapon’ registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.”
This is more “Irish Democracy,” passive resistance to government overreach. The Hartford (Conn.) Courant is demanding that the state use background-check records to prosecute those who haven’t registered, but the state doesn’t have the resources and it’s doubtful juries would convict ordinary, law-abiding people for failure to file some paperwork.
Though people have taken to the streets from Egypt, to Ukraine, to Venezuela to Thailand, many have wondered whether Americans would ever resist the increasing encroachments on their freedom. I think they’ve begun.

[Phil Fiord]

Passive acts are a good temperature read on sentiment and en masse it shows an attitude.

[vector7]

Chinese Paratroopers in California?

(The following was written by the brilliant geo-political expert of world renown, Jeffery R. Nyquist. His web site is at www.JRNyquist.com )

A caller recently told talk radio host Art Bell about a disturbing dream: Chinese paratroops landing in California. Bell dismissed the idea as a logistical impossibility. How could the People's Republic sustain a credible invasion against the continental U.S.?

Art Bell has a point. The U.S. would not be an easy country to invade and occupy. Such an invasion would have to be prepared in advance, at great cost. First, there would have to be nuclear and biological strikes to weaken the defenses. China would then need bases, supply stockpiles and intact harbor facilities.

Looking at recent headlines, however, we ought to wonder if invasion preparations have not been underway in plain view. Russia and China have recently conducted joint military exercises in the Pacific. In April Russian bombers tested Alaska's air defenses. It must be recognized that Russia's missile-power and China's unlimited manpower have been joined into one clenched fist. This represents the fulfillment of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s least-credited prediction about the end of the “Final Phase” of Russia’s long range deception strategy. Writing in his 1984 book, "New Lies for Old," Golitsyn explained:

Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet ‘reconciliation.’ The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist.’ At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.

The plan for a joint military campaign against America, waged by Russia and China, was drawn up many years ago, and was explained in 1999 by the highest ranking defector of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Col. Stanislav Lunev (a Chinese-speaking Russian military officer who worked in China during the 1980s). Based on his own experiences, Lunev suspects that the Russians and Chinese were secretly allied before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Regarding the existence of a joint Russian-Chinese war plan, Lunev stated that prior to his 1992 defection, the Russian General Staff was still committed to fighting and winning a future nuclear war against America. “The nuclear war plan is still on,” he was told. But there would be changes.

No longer would Russian troops be responsible for a follow-up invasion of the lower 48 states (U.S. mainland). Russian forces would be responsible for occupying “Alaska and parts of Canada.” The Chinese would occupy the lower 48 states. In addition, certain Third World countries would be given “looting rights.”

Before expounding on this overall division of responsibilities between Russia and China it is important to explain that Russian ideas regarding a future nuclear war are not like American ideas. In America we think of nuclear war as the end of all life on earth. We are influenced in this view by fictional accounts, by movies written by persons who have no expert knowledge of military plans or methods. Not sharing America’s pulp fiction standpoint, the Russian generals are informed by the latest military science. Their war plans are precise. They know where the bombs will fall and where the fallout will land.

They know what areas will be radioactive and for how long. They also know that the world will not come to an end, even if two hundred million people die in a few days or weeks.

It is my experience, from talking with U.S. military experts, that they have not done their homework with regard to Soviet or Chinese war plans. Instead of carefully reading Russian military texts or listening to the testimony of Col. Lunev, U.S. strategists are blinded by their own preconceptions. They refuse to think creatively about nuclear war.

They fail to see how nuclear weapons might be used to clear a path for a new type of conventional fighting supported by logistical innovations. Who needs heavy, difficult-to-supply divisions when masses of light troops, living off the land, are all that is needed in the wake of nuclear and biological attacks? But U.S. strategists have not considered the possibilities. They have not looked closely into the logic of Chinese and Russian force structure, weapons developments and logistical preparations. They have not considered the Chinese use of shipping companies, port facilities and the appropriation of key logistical gateways under the cover of peacetime trade.

One U.S. expert I spoke with totally denied that Russia or China would consider occupying U.S. territory during a nuclear war. But the words of a classic Russian military text is unambiguous. On page 302 of the RAND translation of "Soviet Military Strategy" it says:

In a future war, the socialist coalition will aim at conclusive political and military goals. To attain those goals, it will not be enough just to destroy the enemy’s means of nuclear attack, to defeat his main forces by missile blows and to disorganize his rear. For final victory … it will be absolutely necessary to smash the enemy’s armed forces completely, deprive him of strategic areas of deployment, liquidate his military bases, and occupy his strategically important regions.

The Russian text goes on to state: “For this reason, the Ground Forces will undoubtedly play an important role, along with the missile forces, in achieving the final goals of the war.” Col. Lunev emphasized three points in his 1999 revelation about Russia’s plan for World War III. First, it is the union of Russian missile power with the Chinese foot soldier that offers a war-winning military combination. Second, America cannot resist this combination because the Russian missiles, in destroying the infrastructure needed to support highly modernized military forces, pave the way for the ascendancy of numerically superior but poorly supplied Chinese divisions. Third, by using port facilities in the Western Hemisphere the Chinese are presently preparing the logistical bases needed to support an invasion of the lower 48 states.

It is no accident that Chinese front companies control port facilities on both ends of the Panama Canal. It is not without strategic significance that China is building the largest container port on earth in the Bahamas. The Chinese interest in gaining footholds in the Western Hemisphere is related to a clearly developed plan in which Chinese troops have the main responsibility for occupying strategic ground.

Recently China’s Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), together with the research department of the People’s Liberation Army, stated that shipbuilding is a “strategic industry” for China. According to the July 2001 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, China’s efforts to dominate shipping and control commercial ports must be viewed within a strategic military framework.

Americans should know that the penetration of U.S. port facilities by Chinese entities is ultimately grounded in military science, not commercial greed. Last summer a CIA source confirmed that 22 Chinese freighters off-loaded a large quantity of military supplies in Mexico. What is this all about?

Because of the destructiveness of nuclear war, existing supply bases in Russia and China may not escape destruction. Consequently, alternate supply depots must be set up in neutral countries and on American soil (if possible). In this context, the Red Dawn scenario is no fantasy and Col. Stanislav Lunev is no idle talker.

Russia is a traditional blood and iron power based on the predator’s code. History shows that the Kremlin is ruthless. Animated by a national inferiority complex compounded by economic envy, Russian leaders dream of revenge. And so do the leaders of China. As for detente, "engagement," or whatever the latest appeasement might be called, the words of Dryden apply:

Thus in a pageant show a plot is made
And peace itself is war in masquerade.

As Stalin once said, "A diplomat's words must contradict his deeds -- otherwise, what sort of diplomat is he?" In 1936 William C. Bullitt, America's first ambassador to Soviet Russia, described Kremlin policy in the following terms:

[Russia] will not, in good faith, enter into any international agreements which have as their object improvement of the general economic condition of the world. It will, on the contrary, try to produce as much chaos as possible in the economies of capitalist countries in the hope that misery may beget communist revolution.

Consider, as well, the words of the Czech disinformation expert who defected many years ago, Zdzislaw M. Rurarz:

[Russia] is contemptuous of any treaty obligations that no longer serve its purposes. At the same time, it knows democratic countries cannot follow its example of blatantly violating valid treaties. The arms control talks and ensuing accords are exploited by … [Russia] for its own ends, and the lengthy process encourages deception and disinformation practices.

Wasn't it Lenin who wrote in 1905 that, “Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken”? Yet President Bush, when he met Russian President Vladimir Putin last June, said: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

A better sense of Putin's soul can be found in a televised speech given by the Russian president on June 22 of last year. On the sixtieth anniversary of Hitler’s attack on Russia, President Putin offered a stern warning to his people. The fascists are still out there, he said. “They still emit their poison in different parts of the earth.”

Dressed in a black suit, Putin hinted at future international dangers. “To this day,” Putin warned, “the world has not rid itself of ideologies that teach extreme nationalism, religious fanaticism and the idea of world dominance.”

I believe that this former KGB officer and one-time chief of Russia’s secret police was manipulating his listeners. After brutally smashing Chechnya he casts an envious glance toward the United States and its naïve president, George W. Bush. “The roots of fascism,” said Putin, “are far from eradicated.”

The shopworn Russian image of America as a fascist republic, run by racists and greedy capitalists, was subliminally evoked by Putin. And it was a performance that took place only one week after Putin’s first summit meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush.

On June 22, Putin reminded the Russian people that Hitler’s invasion cost over 20 million Russian lives. "No one will understand Russia,” he said, “until they know what our people lived through in the war, what experience they gained at the front. Nor would they understand our special feeling toward the Army and the defenders of the fatherland.”

A week earlier Putin had been smiling and joking with President Bush. “You named your daughters after your mother and mother-in-law,” said Putin to his American counterpart. “Well, so did I.” (See how much we have in common, Mr. President!)

But the reality is not so chummy. Putin looked into the Russian television cameras on June 22 and evoked that moment, in 1941, when “the people made their choice.” Putin was complimenting the Russians on their warlike resolve: “In this moment of danger the people chose to defend their fatherland to the last. They would not give up their homeland to the enemy.”

Putin told the Russian people that destructive war is an ever-present possibility. He summoned the memory of 20 million dead. "This is a day of mourning,” Putin explained, “but also a day of warning, a reminder.” And why should this reminder be relevant in 2001?

When Vladimir Putin was Prime Minister of Russia in 1999, the former chief of Russian military intelligence went on television to say that NATO was like the Third Reich. He told the Russian people to remember 1941, that history was repeating itself. This note of warning has appeared in the Russian media many times since.

This kind of talk by Russian officials indicates that a special psychology is at work behind Russian politics. It is a psychology that looks forward to the next war (though it pretends to crave peace). Americans will have trouble understanding this. After the practicality of a Third World War was questioned during a seminar, Col. Lunev once explained to a group of Americans in Washington that his entire 30-year career in the Russian military was focused on one thing: future nuclear world war with the United States. How would that war be fought? According to Lunev, Russia would provide the missile forces and China would provide the expendable ground forces. As the main target of Russian-Chinese military strategy, the United States would have to be invaded and occupied for final victory.

Veteran CIA analyst and congressional military advisor Peter Vincent Pry stated in a recent book, "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink,"

I have personally been on the receiving end of Russian nuclear threats over NATO expansion. In 1997 and again in 1998, a high-ranking Russian official, who has requested anonymity, warned me that NATO enlargement could trigger a nuclear war. The Russian official, claiming knowledge of military contingency plans ... said it was his personal view that these plans would be implemented....

Given these facts, is a Chinese invasion of North America as outlandish as Art Bell assumes?

In August 1998 I asked Col. Lunev if China allied with Russia could defeat the U.S. His answer was an unequivocal "yes." Given that Lunev's training teaches that victory is impossible without occupying the ground, his answer can only suggest one thing.

Chinese troops on U.S. soil is not far-fetched at all.

The Final Treaty

by J. R. Nyquist

Weekly Column Published: 3.26.2010

More than twenty years ago, working on a book that was later titled Origins of the Fourth World War, I inserted a quote from the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, which states: "That nuclear weapons, whose terrible effects are suffered, indiscriminately and inexorably, by military forces and civilian population alike, constitute, through the persistence of the radioactivity they release, an attack on the integrity of the human species and ultimately may even render the whole earth uninhabitable." The treaty further states: "That general and complete disarmament under effective international control is a vital matter which all the peoples of the world equally demand."

About the above, I predicted, "It is, in essence, the language of the final treaty; of the treaty that is coming...." There is an inevitability to certain ideas, for better or worse, and this can be discerned far in advance. Today the "final treaty" will be signed on April 8th, marking the first step in President Barack Obama's march toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Currently the U.S. deploys 2,100 strategic warheads while Russia deploys 2,600 warheads. According to the president of the Partnership for Global Security, Kenneth Luongo, the larger meaning of the present treaty is the way it delegitimizes nuclear weapons.

There is an eloquent summation of all this in James Burnham's book, Suicide of the West, where he wrote: "It is a mark of the ascendancy of liberal ideology ... in the advanced Western nations, most particularly the United States and Great Britain, that for the first time in history disarmament proposals and pacifist-tending ideas are being pressed not by the nations with inferior arms in order to weaken the stronger, but by the stronger in order to weaken themselves: to sacrifice their relative advantage, and thereby to lessen their ability to defend their interests and ideals." As Burnham correctly noted, "what is ending in our age is not empire but merely the empires of the West."

To further make his point, Burnham quoted Louis Veuillot, who wrote: "When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle." Here is what Burnham calls "the dialectic of liberalism." It is also the dialectic of the arms control process between Russia and the United States. The treaty that President Obama is going to sign will not disarm Moscow in the same way it disarms the United States. "When the cost to technical intelligence collection systems is taken into account," wrote former intelligence official Bill Lee in 1997, "the U.S. spent billions trying to verify the 'arms control' agreements with the FSU [Former Soviet Union]. It was largely, if not entirely, a waste." As Lee further explained, the KGB and its successor organizations have waged "a disinformation campaign on arms control" that has effectively turned the Western political elite into a pack of useful idiots. "Given the relatively small number of U.S. missile and bomber warheads likely to survive a Russian preemptive strike under START II," wrote Lee, "if Russia can maintain its Triad of strategic offensive and defensive forces, it will become the preeminent nuclear superpower. The Russian military and senior political officials understand this very well even if the U.S. does not." (See The ABM Treaty Charade: A Study in Elite Illusion and Delusion, by William T. Lee, pp. 141-42.)

In 1990, CIA analyst Peter Vincent Pry wrote: "The balance of U.S.-Soviet strategic lethality and survivability, whether lethality is measured in equivalent yield, countermilitary potential, equivalent weapons, or single-shot kill probability, heavily favors the USSR." (See The Strategic Nuclear Balance and Why it Matters, Peter Pry.) Sadly, the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal since 1990 has more than compensated for any reductions on the Russian side, due to the lack of hardening of U.S. strategic sites (as lamented by Pry). The nuclear balance, since the supposed "fall of the Soviet Union," has consistently and steadily increased Moscow's effective superiority, and the Russians have played an excellent waiting game as they anticipate the accumulation of further advantages.

In 1988 Joseph D. Douglass, Jr. put together a book titled Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties. It is a compilation of expert opinion and testimony on Soviet motivation during the Cold War. It is as accurate and vital today as it was at the time of publication. The appendix of the book contains an essay by the high-level defector Jan Sejna, titled "Arms Control and Soviet Strategy." The chief motivation behind everything done in Russia, said Sejna, is Marxism-Leninism.

"There is a tendency among many Western commentators on Soviet affairs to talk about Marxism-Leninist ideology as if it were dead. They expect to see modifications in Soviet policy, especially when the top level strategic leadership of the Soviet Union changes. Changes there are, although these are most often tactical innovations, not substantive changes. Occasionally there are even variations in strategy. However ... there have been no significant changes in the strategic goals to establish a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in every country worldwide, each controlled according to the principle of proletarian internationalism."

If we look carefully at Moscow's policy, we find a country that remains allied with the Communist enemies of the United States (in North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam and China, etc.). It is a serious failing on the American side that enmity of the Communist nations is not recognized, neither do we recognize that Russia remains under effective KGB control, and that the KGB remains the "sword and shield" of the Communist Party Soviet Union (presently underground). Deception has always been a Soviet mainstay. On September 27th, 1905 the founder of the Soviet state, Vladimir Lenin, said: "Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken...." In his Reply to Debate on War and Peace (1919) Lenin wrote, "It is ridiculous not to know the history of war, not to know that a treaty is a means of gaining strength."

According to Sejna, "by 1963 the Soviets began to believe that at some time in the distant future, nuclear weapons might be prohibited." The leadership in Moscow, with great strategic foresight, realized that the elimination of nuclear weapons would deprive them of their most important advantage. Therefore the Russians put great effort into the development of advanced chemical and biological weapons. "Superiority in CBW [chemical-biological weapons] ... would enable the Soviets actually to increase their strength in a future era where nuclear weapons would be banned. However, this did not mean that the Soviet Union would discard its nuclear weapons; on the contrary, the Soviets would retain a substantial hidden reserve, because they could not trust the Western 'imperialists' to destroy their nuclear stockpiles."

Exactly such a hidden reserve was testified to by intelligence expert Bill Lee, toward the end of his book (quoted above), where he wrote about Russia's extensive national ABM system and hidden stockpile of re-fire missiles and warheads. According to Lee, "While the treaties did not prohibit production of re-fire missiles and warheads, the FSU [Former Soviet Union] produced far more strategic missiles than were declared under START I and the INF Treaty. The U.S. does not know how many re-fire missiles were produced, nor where these stocks are located.

Similarly, the FSU produced and stocked (at least) 50 to 100 percent more nuclear weapons than the U.S. estimated, and the U.S. does not know where those warheads are stored. CIA and DIA covered up all discrepancies in the Soviet declarations of weapons stocks under the START, INF and CFE Treaties." (Lee, p. 141.)

Nothing can stop the disarmament process over time. It will advance, and will signify the weakening of the West as it signifies the strengthening of Russia and China. The final, predictable, and tragic result of all this was foreseen by James Burnham more than four decades ago. With all that happened during and after World War II, it seems that nothing has been learned about the essential nature of free society and the essential nature of societies that are decidedly not free.

Copyright © 2010 Jeffrey R. Nyquist

Was Attack On San Jose Electric-Power Substation Terrorism?

February 7, 2014 · by Fortuna's Corner · in Al Qaeda, CIA, espionage, spying, Intelligence Community, national security, terrorism, US Military · 2 Comments
PRY: Was Attack on San Jose Electric-Power Substation Terrorism?
Vulnerability of grid demands attention, action
By Peter Vincent Pry


Thursday, February 6, 2014


Now making headlines is news that last April unknown parties attacked an electric-power substation outside San Jose, Calif., attempting to black out Silicon Valley.


This underreported story deserved national attention when it happened nearly a year ago owing to major implications for electric-power grid vulnerability to terrorist attack.


The FBI must have read the White House memo that the war on terrorism is over. It says there is “no evidence” the attack was by terrorists. Never mind that a U.S. Navy SEAL team that investigated found it was highly professional, like a military operation.


Never mind that the attackers also knew how to cut telephone cables, understood the importance and vulnerability of transformers, and sprayed them with AK-47 fire, the favorite assault rifle of rogue states and terrorists.


The perpetrators, whoever they were, got away clean, and nearly a year later they have not been apprehended by the FBI.


Whoever attempted to sabotage the San Jose electric substation, whether or not they were terrorists, the incident should be a wake-up call to federal and state governments, and to the electric-power industry, that much more needs to be done to protect the grid.


Six months after the San Jose attack, on Oct. 29, a terrorist drug cartel called the Knights Templar, sabotaged the power grid in Mexico’s Michoacan state, plunging 420,000 people into blackout, cutting off communications and help from federal authorities. They took advantage of the isolation to publicly execute town and village leaders opposed to the drug trade.


The bad guys are learning that the electric grid is a key societal vulnerability.


Those of us who want to protect the national grid need to make common cause and not get distracted over whether our efforts should focus primarily on kinetic attacks or cyberattacks, or on an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from the sun, or from nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. We need to protect the grid from all the above.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2sdmJu7tL
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Listened to a great interview yesterday from Peter Vincent Pry, the podcast is here and it starts 11:00 minutes into the podcast.

[vector7]

North Korea Threatens Nuclear Strike on White House

Jul. 28, 2014 - 05:38PM |
By AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE | Comments



North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is seated July 28 during a performance given by the State Merited Chorus at the People's Theatre in Pyongyang. (AFP)


Related Links

• North Korea Defies UN Censure To Fire Missile Into Sea

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — A top-ranking North Korean military official has threatened a nuclear strike on the White House and Pentagon after accusing Washington of raising military tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The threat came from Hwang Pyong-So, director of the military’s General Political Bureau, during a speech to a large military rally in Pyongyang Sunday on the anniversary of the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

Hwang, who holds the rank of vice marshal in the Korean People’s Army, said a recent series of South Korea-US military drills, one of which included the deployment of a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier, had ramped up tensions.

“If the US imperialists threaten our sovereignty and survival ... our troops will fire our nuclear-armed rockets at the White House and the Pentagon — the sources of all evil,” Hwang said in his speech broadcast Monday on state television.

It is not the first time that North Korea’s bellicose rhetoric has included threats of nuclear strikes on the continental United States and US bases in the Pacific.

But most experts believe it is still a long way from developing a viable intercontinental ballistic missile with the required range.

The North has conducted three nuclear tests, but is not thought to have mastered the miniaturization techniques necessary for mounting a warhead on a missile.

It does possess a range of short-and mid-range missiles capable of striking South Korea and Japan, and has conducted a series of test firings into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) in recent weeks.

The latest test on Saturday — guided by the leader Kim Jong-Un — simulated a short-range missile strike on South Korea where 28,500 US troops are stationed, the North’s state media said.

It defied censure by the UN Security Council which officially condemned Pyongyang on July 17 over the recent tests as violations of UN resolutions prohibiting the North from using ballistic missile technology.


North Korea has largest fleet of submarines worldwide

• Staff Reporter
• 2014-07-29
• 15:50 (GMT+8)

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un inspects the Korean People's Navy No. 748 submarine. (Photo/Korean Central News Agency)

North Korea has the largest fleet of submarines in the world, with 78 currently in its arsenal, according to the Global Firepower Index of the Business Insider based in New York.

The United States has six fewer at 72, while China came in third place with 69 submarines. Russia was ranked fourth with 63 and Iran was in fifth place fifth with around 31 submarines, while Japan has 16 and South Korea has 14.

The Global Security website run by a group of defense and intelligence experts estimated that the Korean People's Navy is in possession of at least 78 submarines, including eight semi-submersible infiltration crafts.