CNN Says Russia had ordered NATO members out of Moscow. (no text)greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Looks like its time for all interns to leave the oval office.
-- Puddintame (email@example.com), March 26, 1999
Plus this morning they reported that Greece (NATO member) wants the whole thing called off.......
Not good. Not good at all.
-- Lisa (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
As of what time did they report it...? And who reported it...? I know cnn... but what are their sources...
If this is true... we won't have to worry about y2k...
-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), March 26, 1999.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia cranked up the pressure on NATO over its air strikes on Yugoslavia Friday, expelling the alliance's Moscow representatives and calling for world tribunal to charge those who organized the bombing.
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, emerging as Russia's hawkish mouthpiece in the crisis over Serbia's Kosovo province, told reporters European members of the six-nation Contact Group on Yugoslavia had agreed to meet but the United States was against.
``Washington does not agree, standing by their position of an ultimatum,'' he said.
Russia, an ally of fellow Slav, Orthodox Christian Serbia, has been the most vocal critic of NATO strikes, but has not matched rhetoric with far-reaching action, not least because it is mindful it is seeking Western loans and receiving food aid.
President Boris Yeltsin gathered his senior ministers and intelligence chiefs early in the day to discuss their next steps, and Ivanov later outlined the latest retaliatory steps and demands, including a call for humanitarian aid for Yugoslavia and a crimes tribunal.
``In accordance with international law, those who give such orders should be held responsible, including in a criminal way,'' he said. ``The international tribunal on the former Yugoslavia should immediately look into this.''
He did not say who he had in mind. But angry demonstrators made clear their view. They spent a second day outside the U.S. and other NATO embassies. Russian newspapers also mined a rich vein of invective against the Western alliance.
Ivanov, a normally urbane career diplomat, also vented his ire against NATO and said the alliance's two Moscow representatives -- a French civilian and a German officer -- had been told to leave, a symbolic act that nonetheless hampers the information flow.
In a sign of closer ties since the end of the Cold War, NATO has had a French civilian and German air force colonel working out of the German embassy to liaise with the Russian military and meet the public and media.
``There are no contacts with the leaders of NATO, including the secretary-general, and there won't be until aggression against Yugoslavia stops,'' he said.
``Of course, NATO regrets this very much,'' Colonel Manfred Diehl, the military contact officer, told Reuters. The two men have 24 hours to leave country. Diehl said he would not be back.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Yakushkin said Yeltsin was briefed by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, Ivanov and the chiefs of military and foreign intelligence.
Primakov's key ministers and spy chiefs are meeting each morning at the government White House headquarters to review the crisis over Kosovo, an ethnic Albanian-majority province in Yugoslavia, and draw up policy options. Then Yeltsin is briefed.
Primakov spelled out the leadership's position to parliament party leaders. The opposition-dominated State Duma (lower house) plans an emergency session on Kosovo Saturday. Opposition leaders have broadly backed Primakov and Yeltsin in the crisis.
Russia has introduced a resolution at the U.N. Security Council calling for bombing to stop and talks to start again.
Russia has tried to portray its policy as one of moral restraint, even as officials used language rarely heard since the Cold War and the press whipped itself into a frenzy.
The tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets implied President Clinton's enthusiasm for the Kosovo strikes stemmed from his sexual frustration after ending his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
``Bill without Monica has become a complete beast,'' it said.
-- Sysman (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
At approx 12:20 cst, CNN shifted their coverage to Europe, and it is reported that some (how many I wonder) NATO planes have been shot down.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
At approx 12:35 cst, CNN is reporting that the planes which were shot down were Migs not NATO planes.
-- (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
Y'all aparently missed the first shot in th eRussian diplomatic battle when the premier (I think) turned his plane around over the atlantic and went home Wednesday. The significance was lost on teh current crop of press, and aparently most of you.
Chuck who can read some of the grosser aspects of diplomacy, the finer facets are what get me.
-- Chuck, a night driver (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
Oh great. Just great. Yeltsin's dying and we were trying to cooperate with that country so there would be no accidental nuke launches as a result of Y2K. Anybody looked at a globe lately to see just how BIG Russia is? This whole thing is bad, bad, bad.
Just a thought--if any of our recent past presidents were in office right now, what do you think Russia would be saying/doing?
-- FM (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
FM: no kidding. If they can prop Yeltsin up, why can't we give Reagan a little no-doz (and maybe a little makeup) and put him on TV?
Good thing he's not in a position to absorb all this......
-- Lisa (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
If Mr. Bush had been in office two years ago, the "Belgrade Spring" demonstrations against Milosevic would have been strongly supported (as were many resistance movements elsewhere), and his regime would have countered and de-legitimized by the internal opposition. Instead, the US did little if anything to assist all the Serbians who oppose Milosevic and they will now be wiped out "under cover of authority". Had we assisted the Serbian opposition, we would not now see a need to intervene as this thug attacks those who resist.
Mr. Clinton's reactive foreign policy has now placed American lives at risk for reasons which are flimsy at best. We haven't attacked China over Tibet. We never attacked Russia over Chechnya. We haven't waged war on Mexico over Chiapas. All these have been brutal repressions involving a great many deaths of innocents. Why are we now risking lives over Kosovo?
-- Mac (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
My heart hurts.
Quiet anger, disbelief among Belgrade's people
Friday, March 26, 1999
Breaking News Sections
(03-26) 10:17 PST BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (AP) -- Lines form early at grocery stories in the Serbian capital, and for good reason: By mid- morning bread and milk are gone. ...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/1999/03/26/ international1317EST0607.DTL
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
CNN: UNITED NATIONS Security Council rejects Russian call to halt bombing
March 26, 1999
Web posted at: 1:16 p.m. EST (1816 GMT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a diplomatic blow to Russia, a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate end to NATO attacks on Yugoslavia failed by a wide margin Friday.
The vote was 12-3, with only China and Namibia joining Russia in support of the measure. Russia sought an end to NATO's three-day-old bombing campaign in Yugoslavia and an immediate resumption of negotiations.
"One's worst fears are being fulfilled now. The virus of lawlessness is encompassing more spheres of international relations," said Sergey Lavrov, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations.
But the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Peter Burleigh, said the resolution should have been defeated because it would "damage prospects for a negotiated settlement and make further bloodshed more likely."
Burleigh said the resolution "can only encourage (Yugoslav) President Slobodan Milosevic to continue or even to intensify military repression of the civilian population of Kosovo."
The NATO campaign seeks to force the Balkan nation to accept a negotiated settlement of the ethnic strife in Kosovo, and to limit the Serb government's ability to attack ethnic Albanians in the province where rebels have sought independence.
Burleigh said the United States had received "disturbing reports that Serb forces are using human shields, that noncombatants are being rounded up in large groups, and that some are being summarily executed."
He called NATO's actions "completely justified" and legal under the U.N. charter.
Russia has strong historic ties to Serbia, the dominant republic in the Yugoslav Federation, and Russians have objected strongly to the airstrikes. Russia ordered NATO representatives out of Moscow on Friday in protest.
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
Diane, please see
Belgrade Preview of Y2K Effects
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
Russia and Serbia are very tight. I just learned that Serbia's ambassador to Russia is the BROTHER of President Slobodan Milosevic.
Anyone remember a book that came out sometime in the mid 80's named The Third World War; A history. A fictional history of a new war in europe written by a NATO general (General Sir john somebody...Arlin knows.)Fascinating book.
Guess where it started?
Yup. A proxy war in Yugoslovia.
-- Lewis (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
The beginning of WWI ... Medjugorje ...
What exactly is the saying? "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." ??? Hallyx?
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-- Leska (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
All is going according to plan. Please reread this bit of prophecy .I don't think I know anymore than you do, I have theories but doesn't everyone. The CFR and the Trilateral Commission are openly working towards this One World Government, they don't even bother to try and hide their agenda anymore. It seems fairly clear cut to me that the same old world families are the power source behind this movement, the international banking families that is. The Rockefelllers and the Rothschilds, and the Goulds, and the Getty's. I think Y2K was either a preplanned event by these people, or is certainly playing right into their hands rather conveniently. We have reached the end of the debt cycle of fiat money anyway, and the U>S> and world economies are doomed to first recession and then all out depression Y2K or not. Y2K will merely act as a catylist to accelerate the collapse. The American people are the last heavily armed populace in any civilized nation on the planet. These civilians and the American Military pose one of two threats to the New World order movement. The other threat is the communist block of Russia, China, N. Korea, The Baltic States, and Cuba. Their time frame is limited in which they can act as weapons of mass destruction proliferate into third world countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. They must act on finalization of their plans before this third threat can fully materialize and the situation becomes completely uncontrollable. I will come back and review these 3 threats and likely scenarios later. Their methods to date have gone exactly according to plan and can be summed up fairly simply. Through massive manipulation of banking and the stock market in the 1920's these families succeeded in bringing on the crash of the stock market in 1929 and the great depression which followed. After starving the American public for a time by tightening the money supply they were able to implement phase two of their plan via installation of the Federal Reserve and the New Deal. FDR will no doubt be remembered in long term history as the greatest traitor America has ever known. If America continues to exist that is. Using their new tool, the FED, they were able to print money at will, created out of thin air, and backed by increasing public debt. Of course this power expanded their wealth and power to corrupt expotentially. Loosening the reigns on the money supply America began to pull out of the artificially created depression, though no longer a soverign nation as it had been. We had sold our soul to the Banking Families. After World war two the MarShall plan rebuilt our enemies into the industrial powerhouse competitors they are today. The United Nations was formed as a tool to erode and eventually destroy the national soverignity of all nations worldwide, and to open the doors for the banking Families to replicate their FED scam worldwide.AS more and more Wealth accrued to the Banking Families They began to attack selective economies one at a time, forcing the governments to abandon the Gold standard and first liquidate their reserves of gold, then go into debt to the IMF. Australia was the last holdout, and they went off the gold standard last year. Having already accumulated nearly half the World's supply of gold bullion they were able to control the price of gold artificially by simply buying and selling amonst themselves in large amounts. Australia began dumping it's gold reserves last year to help hold the price down while Russia floundered repaying private banking loans which were secured with one third of its gold reserves. They ultimately forfieted their mortgaged reserves as a direct consequence of Australias actions and the American congress' refusal to fund further IMF loans to them. So at this point in time these families privately own nearly two thirds of the entire gold supply of the entire world., and managed to get it by printing their own money. Pretty neat scam huh? In the meantime they had pumped billions of dollars into those foreign nations such as Japan and Germany building an infrastructure and manufacturing base which was able to capitalize on cheap labor. Our own innefficient industrial base found itself unable to compete with unregulated foreign imports and began it's overseas flight. This process was greatly accelerated through NAFTA and GATT. The Amercan agricultural base was destroyed through similar methods. Generations old family farms were mortgaged to the government in efforts to upgrade efficiency so that they could compete with heavily subsidized agricultural imports. Most of these farms were ultimately lost and mega corporations assumed control of our food supplies. The result of this is that when the bubble burst there will be massive starvation. Through the downsizing of the military they have been able to accomplish two goals. First they have incredibly weakened our defenses and our ability to rapidly expand the military no longer exist. These high tech weapons systems we use are not only vulnerable to Y2K but they also take intelligent people to operate them and it takes years of training to do so. Secondly through selective promotion and forced early retirement they have restructured the command elements of the military with personality types who will willingly use these forces on the American people when ordered to do so. Case in point here, ever chief of the Joint chiefs of staff since the mid 1950's has been a member of the CFR. Having gained total control of the world's gold supply, food supply, and national governments we have entered phase three of the plan. They have established the Euro dollar as a introduction to one world currency. Using their vast gold reserves they will be able to sustain or devalue all other world currencies at their will in the coming worldwide chaos. This pretty well brings us to our current moment in time. Final implementation of the plan calls for a worldwide depression, elimination of America as a military threat, an global population reductions through war and disease and starvation. the American Government has openly started it's villification of opposition groups ala Militia's and Christians. As we approach Y2K they are stomping posse comatais into the ground, preparing for martial law, and getting ready to exterminate the opposition. Civil war is a given at this point in the very near future as patriots fight for their very lives. This will not be an honorable war, it will be a take no prisoners, no holds barred, genocidal free for all. Surrender is death. No doubt large segments of the military will revolt and cross to the patriot ranks, and on these units numbers the outcome of this particular conflict will hinge. In the overall scheme of the Trilateralist plans the short term victor of America's war is not critical, all that matter's is that she be devastated to the point of no longer being able to mount resistence to their overthrow of the rest of the world. Once they have consolidated The United Nations into a one world government they can easily come back here and mop up the survivors if we are locally victorious. this doesn't mean they won't try very hard to win here as an intact America under their control would greatly expedite their overthrow of everyone else. This brings us to the second threat, the Communist Bloc. These powers have basically the same goals as the banking families, but a different set of leaders as an ultimate goal. Russia is well equipped to overrun Eastern Europe with America out of the picture if the Chinese throw in with them. The recent thaw in Russia's and China's relations is a powerful indicator they are considering just this option. The NWO, recognizing this threat, is positioning the United states to take the brunt of a nuclear exchange should it come to that. We are actively villanizing the Chinese in the world community now, and escalating tensions via weapons transfers to Taiwan. Technology transfers to China in the recent past have ensured that they will have the capability to do massive damage to the United States in the event they choose to strike. We are being played off against each other like a pair of fighting roosters, getting the dander up and the smell of blood in the air. So what does this mean? Pretty simple really. Either the communist nations will elect to eventually come under the umbrella of the European One World Government, Or they will attempt to neutralize the United States and overrun Europe. Through our provacations we are trying to force them to show their hand and commit to one course of action or the other while NATO retains sufficient integrity (Pre Y2K) to deliver a coordinated strike against them. I would think the days leading up to the gps rollover and the remainder of 1999 will be interesting indeed. In the most Chinese sense of the word.
-- Nikoli Krushev (email@example.com), February 09, 1999 history I posted in Febrary.
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
Somebody eMailed us about WWI ... Medjugorje, but their addy was false. So here's a brief response:
We read that the region is the kindling-spark for World Wars, that WWI started because of an assassination connected to that region, and that the Holy Mother Virgin Mary came to that region to ask for special prayers and penance lest its turmoil once again start another World War.
Have you also heard this?
I keep hoping somebody with insight about these historical events, facts, and then the warnings & prophecies, will post!
Please let me know everything you've heard along these lines.
I recall something about Her appearing there at a crucial moment in the future with a great miracle on a hilltop for all to see. Is now the time?
How will we know if all the reporters are kicked out of the region?
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx
-- Leska (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
Excellent post, Nikoli, wish it wasn't true but it is.
-- sparks (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
Diane, I had this snippet lying around from yesterday. sniphttp://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpin1x.htm
During the day, Belgraders went on last-minute shopping sprees for flour, cooking oil, sugar and other staples. They waited for hours in line at gasoline stations, while the authorities banned the sale of diesel fuel so the army could use all supplies. (end) Doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. Saw interviews with locals today, recounting experiences with loved ones via phone, ouch. War stinks.
-- Deborah (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
Here's something interesting from Joel Skousen
A Nuclear Knife Aimed at Americas Heart Joel M. Skousen March 25, 1999
In November 1997, President Clinton signed a top-secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) directing U.S. military commanders to abandon the time-honored nuclear deterrence of "launch on warning." Ironically, this was done in the name of "increased deterrence." Every sensible American needs to understand why this reasoning is fraudulent at best and deadly at worst. First, some background.
The impetus to change U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine came on the heels of Clintons demand to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce Americas nuclear warhead deployment to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of the START II disarmament treaty. This pact has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma.
Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldnt comply, since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Decision Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldnt be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.
According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (November/December 1997 issue), "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."
Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing toward the relaxation of Western vigilance and accelerated disarmament. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders, and the American people.
Almost everyone is buying it -- even most conservatives who should know better. However, the most savvy Soviet-watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called "collapse" was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to assist Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states.
But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: Russia is cheating on all aspects of disarmament, and is siphoning off billions in Western aid money to modernize and deploy top-of-the-line new weapons systems aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge, decapitating nuclear strike.
Contrast this with the Clinton administrations response. Incredibly, while still paying lip service to nuclear deterrence, Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward L. Warner III went before the Congress on March 31, 1998, and bragged about the litany of unilateral disarmament this administration has forced upon the U.S. military:
Warner noted the "success" the Clinton administration has had in recent years, which has:
Eliminated our entire inventory of ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles).
Removed all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases.
Removed our strategic bombers from alert.
Stood down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I.
Terminated the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs.
Terminated the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile. In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included:
Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers.
Canceling the entire small ICBM program.
Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (submarine-launched missile) warheads.
Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles.
Stopping new production of Peacekeeper missiles (our biggest MIRV- warhead ICBM). "As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent," Warner enthused.
All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the Russians.
The Clinton administration would counter this charge by citing the "successful" dismantling of 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252 ICBMs and related silos -- all paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds to the tune of $300 million per year. But the real story is otherwise.
Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these systems -- the oldest and most out-of-date in the Soviet inventory. They were scheduled for replacement anyway, so the U.S. taxpayer ended up saving the Russians over a billion dollars, allowing them to use this and other Western aid to develop and build new systems, coming on line right now. But that isnt all.
What the administration doesnt say is that they allowed the Russians to reclaim all the nuclear warheads, and paid them to recycle the usable material into new, updated warheads. We didnt diminish the threat at all. We only helped them to transform it into something more dangerous.
Thus, the Russians still maintain a more than 3-to-1 advantage over the United States in both throw-weight and nuclear delivery vehicles. That disparity is widening dramatically with the Clinton administrations unilateral disarmament while at the same time encouraging the Russians to proceed not only with the deployment of 500 new Topol-M missiles (which are mobile-launched and therefore difficult to target), but to put three MIRVed warheads on each missile instead of the treaty limit of one warhead -- for a total deployment of 1,500 warheads.
Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the current Russian inventory, these 1,500 new warheads would overwhelm a measly 200-interceptor ABM system in North Dakota -- which the Clinton administration is insisting should NOT be deployed before 2005. I wonder why?
With our 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs scheduled to be decommissioned in 2003, that gives the Russians or Chinese a wide-open window for attack, should they choose to exercise their first-strike, nuclear- decapitation option.
So much for the "new realism" of the Clinton disarmament team and their assertion that Russia poses no threat. Judging strictly by public data from establishment sources (which is always understated due to Moscows heavy shroud of secrecy) the Russian threat is much greater than it ever was, both in quantity and quality of strategic nuclear forces. This is thanks, in part, to ongoing technology transfers by IBM and other defense contractors with the knowing participation and encouragement of this administration.
Now lets take a close look at this presumed "increased deterrence" the Clinton Department of Defense is promising. The administration claims its brand of deterrence is still based on the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) concept -- a truly appropriate acronym.
This is the presumption that, since both sides have an overwhelming capability to destroy each other, that no sane leadership would engage in nuclear war. Lets examine this closely. MAD could only stand as a viable assumption if:
Both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery vehicles to inflict total devastation.
Neither side had an effective anti-ballistic-missile system.
Neither side had electronic jamming capability on its incoming ICBMs.
Neither side had hardened shelters protecting its population and leadership. These assumptions clearly do not exist today:
First, we barely have enough nuclear warheads to take out the Russian arsenal as presently constituted if we used them all at once (which no sane military commander could afford to do, leaving him with no reserves). Russia, on the other hand, has enough to devastate our entire strategic forces and still retain 60 percent of her weapons in reserve, for a prolonged conflict.
Second, we have no ABM system to protect against ICBMs at all. Our dumbed-down and slowed-down Patriots are theater weapons (built to conform to the flawed ABM Treaty) and can barely catch slow, low- flying Scud missiles, let alone ICBMs that coming screaming in from space at 6 to 12 kilometers per second. The Russians have (in violation of the same ABM Treaty) a nationwide system of ABMs tied to phased-array radars and satellite guidance systems.
Third, we have no electronic jamming on our missiles to help them penetrate the Russian ABM system, and the Russians claim their newest Topol-M missiles do have such a capability. Whether or not this claim is a bluff is immaterial. The fact is, they are building new, high- tech missiles and our technology is 10 years old and stagnant. We are not developing or building anything new. This aspect can only worsen as time goes on.
Fourth, our civilian population is totally unprotected, while a large portion of the Russian cities have public fallout shelter facilities. New bunkers are being constructed for the Russian leadership despite the economic hardships the people suffer. This should tell us something about Russian leadership intentions.
Is this Mutually Assured Destruction? Hardly. It equates to United States Assured Destruction! In every category of deterrence, we are disarming and stagnant, and the Russians are building and deploying. There is, in fact, only one type of deterrence that is capable of somewhat balancing the scales: the nuclear response doctrine of Launch on Warning.
Launch on Warning takes advantage of the fact that long-range ballistic missiles take time to arrive on target -- up to 25 minutes, depending on where the missiles are fired from. If the Russians were to launch a first strike, our satellites would detect and confirm that launch within seconds. In a Launch on Warning doctrine, our missiles (if on alert status) could be launched before the Russian or Chinese missiles hit our silos. There is also time to retarget our missiles so that they are not wasted on Russian silos that are now empty.
Thus, one of the great advantages for a Launch on Warning doctrine is that it allows the nation that launches second to have an advantage over the nation that launches first. The one to launch first wastes a certain number of its missiles on our silos that are now empty. By contrast, our missiles (utilizing real-time targeting data from satellites) strike targets that are still viable.
Now that is deterrence -- a deterrence that we presently do not have due to PDD-60.
Clinton national security aide Robert Bell proudly proclaimed to a group of disarmament advocates, "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."
This is patently preposterous. Respond with what?
We have no mobile missiles to avoid being targeted. We have already unilaterally agreed to keep over half of our ballistic missile submarines in port at any one time, so they can easily be targeted. After all, we dont want our Russian "allies" to feel insecure!
All of our Navy and Air Force strategic forces are incapable of withstanding a nuclear strike. Even the remaining Trident subs on patrol would be unable to respond when communication links and satellites are downed in a first strike.
PDD-60 removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communication with the president. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. When you tell the Russians we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond.
This is not deterrence. This is suicide. (OR TREASON!!, MY INSERT)
Joel M. Skousen is a political scientist by training and former chairman of the Conservative National Commitee. He is a specialist in security matters and consults nationwide on "Strategic Relocation" -- the title of his latest book. Visit his web site here.
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 26, 1999.
Leska....check out this URL for an answer to your question about Medjugorje
-- Sheila (email@example.com), March 26, 1999.
Leska: www.Medjugorje.org is good, or go to Yahoo and search on 'Blessed Virgin Mary.' A great book is Janice Connell's 'Visions of the Children,' filled with amazing wisdom from the six visionaries. In brief: three 'warnings' are going to be given, consisting of events on Earth, before the great sign is given at Pdrobo Hill in Medjugorje (and at other Marian Apparition sites around the world). After the sign is given, there will be little time for those left alive to convert (their hearts to God). The first 'warning,' according to the visionaries, is supposed to break the power of evil in the world. The visionaries (who were age ten to fifteen when the apparitions began in 1981), are now young adults with families. They unfailingly exhort people to NOT FEAR, to trust God, and to follow the Blessed Mother's urgings to pray. They refuse to discuss the events that are to occur. They simply say that this is a time of mercy, and not to wait before conversion, and not to wait for the sign to appear. They do say the sign will be visible to all, and will be clearly supernatural. Some have speculated that it will be akin to the Shekinah glory, the pillar of flame/smoke that guided the Israelites in the desert. They also state clearly that at the moment of death, the person's soul separates from the body, but the person remains fully aware of what is happening. As a hospice care-giver, you probably have a clearer understanding of that than most. Hope this helps. Peace.
-- Spidey (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 27, 1999.