Is there a defense
against nuclear attack?

---

© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

A few weeks ago the United States successfully tested an ABM system by shooting down a missile with a missile. This remains an extraordinary accomplishment. But this accomplishment needs to be put into perspective. In March 1961 Russia successfully knocked down an SS-4 Medium Range Ballistic Missile with a missile. More than a year later Nikita Khrushchev boasted that Russia had an ABM that could "hit a fly in space."

The 1961 Russian test has been forgotten by most Americans. It is high time we were reminded what happened. Russia's ABM tests of the early '60s were extremely sophisticated. In fact, the Russians even experimented with high altitude atomic explosions to see if nuclear missiles could be used to stop nuclear missiles. The Russians learned that x-ray radiation from a special type of hydrogen bomb, exploded at altitudes above 80 kilometers, could fry critical components in an incoming American warhead (up to 30 kilometers away). With this approach the Russians didn't need a system that could "hit a fly in space." To perfect their understanding of this type of defense, the Russians conducted a hurried series of tests before the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty came into effect. From these experiments, which were closed off to the United States by the Test-Ban Treaty of 1963, the Russians learned how different kinds of radiation affected the performance of radar, communications and missiles.

The importance of Russian and American research into ballistic missile defense can be found in the increasing importance of ballistic missiles as weapons of war. Since the 1950s, missile weapons have grown in importance because of their tremendous speed, and because they can now carry nuclear warheads from one side of the planet to the other. To explain the situation in simple terms, the nuclear missile became the most decisive weapon of our time. A country without nuclear missiles is no match for a country with them.

The nuclear missile weapon brings together two different weapon systems developed during World War II.

In 1945 the United States tested the first atomic bomb. Two of these weapons were dropped on our wartime enemy, Japan. Over 140,000 Japanese were killed, mostly civilians. A few days after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered and World War II was over. The first atomic war in history was won by the United States.

Before America tested its first atomic bomb, ballistic missiles were developed by Hitler's scientists and used against England. Under a gifted team of experts which included Dr. Wernher von Braun, Germany developed the Vengence Weapon 2 -- or V-2 rocket. The Nazi ballistic missiles moved very fast. Once a V-2 missile was launched no fighter could intercept it, no anti-aircraft gun could shoot it down. The Nazis aimed most of these primitive and inaccurate V-2 rockets at London -- knowing it was easier to hit than a smaller target.

After Germany was defeated, some of the German scientists went to work for Soviet Russia. Other German Scientists, like Wernher von Braun, went to work for America. In 1949, under the guidance of Igor Vasilyevich Kurchatov, Russia exploded its first atomic bomb and America's nuclear monopoly was at an end. A few years later Russia exploded the first workable hydrogen bomb, several months ahead of the United States. On Oct. 4, 1957, Russia flight-tested the world's first operational ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) when Sputnik was launched into orbit. The satellite itself weighed 148 pounds. It was a rude awakening for the United States. A missile that can put a satellite into orbit might also deliver a nuclear payload to an American city. America's invulnerability to attack was at an end.

Whenever a new weapon appears a new idea of war arrives with it. Around 1959 the Soviet Union formalized its nuclear war fighting doctrine. According to former CIA analyst William F. Lee, the Soviet Union sought to win a future nuclear war by creating offensive and defensive nuclear forces that would limit damage to the Soviet Union while delivering a decisive blow against the "main enemy" -- America. In other words, Russia was committed to developing a large arsenal of intercontinental rockets along with missiles that could shoot down missiles.

ABM defense became a primary concern of Soviet military thinkers in the early years of the Cold War. In 1954 seven Soviet marshals, including the chief of the General Staff, Marshal V.D. Sokolovskiy, recommended the development of ABM defenses for the USSR. According to a top secret General Staff publication, "reliable antimissile defense ... is becoming one of the most important conditions for the successful conduct of modern war."

Russian nuclear war theory was developed under the guidance of Sokolovskiy in the 1950s. A highly classified body of military literature, known as the Ironbark papers, outlined how to fight and win an atomic war. Included in these papers was a contribution by Col. Gen. I. Podgorny, which outlined the decisive role ABM defenses would play in a future world war. Later, in the 1960s, the unclassified version of the Ironbark papers -- entitled Soviet Military Strategy -- was published under the editorship of Sokolovskiy.

Unfortunately, the CIA dismissed the Ironbark papers as propaganda. When Soviet Military Strategy was published and translated in the early 1960s, American analysts didn't take its message seriously. "Nobody would try to win a nuclear war," CIA experts would say. The idea of winning a mass destruction war was alien to the American mentality. But for Russia, which had suffered the conventional equivalent of mass destruction during World War II, such a war was obviously winnable. Some of Russia's largest cities were gutted by the Nazis, who killed nearly 30 million Soviets in the war. Russian military and political leaders saw nothing inconceivable in a nuclear war of mass destruction. After all, they had already won the greatest mass destruction war yet waged.

William F. Lee was one of the few CIA analysts who took Russian nuclear war theory seriously. And Lee was one of the few people at the CIA who accurately predicted the development of Russia's nuclear forces. As Lee documents in his book, "The ABM Treaty Charade," the National Intelligence Estimates of the U.S. intelligence community were consistently wrong about the Soviet Union's commitment to nuclear superiority throughout the 1960s and 70s. While the United States adopted the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) under the auspices of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, the Russians developed their forces around the idea of a surprise attack against America's nuclear arsenal and command headquarters. While the Russians concentrated on building ballistic missile defenses, blast shelters and more accurate ICBMs, McNamara instructed our missile experts to make our weapons less accurate, so that we would not be tempted to launch a first strike against Soviet military targets.

McNamara's strategy was simple. We only needed to blow up Russia's largest cities. That would be enough to deter a nuclear war. At the same time, McNamara was against the building of ABM defenses for America. Even though President Johnson decided to go ahead with an ABM program, McNamara maneuvered to stop the building of a defensive shield for America. His doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would not work if the United States could avoid destruction in a war. The only way to prevent war, he argued, was to make it too terrible for either side to contemplate.

After McNamara, came Henry Kissinger and the signing of the ABM Treaty -- which restricted the building of ABM systems. But as Lee documents in his book, the Russians never kept the ABM Treaty. They were committed to acquiring a national ABM defense and a decisive advantage in nuclear missile weapons. While American policymakers looked at the ABM Treaty as a way to halt the arms race, Russia looked at the treaty as a way of catching up with a militarily superior United States. In fact, during the 1960s the U.S. had developed a sophisticated ABM prototype in the NIKE-X system, but the U.S. never deployed this technology. The Russians, on the other hand, took full advantage of our stupidity by copying NIKE-X and deploying their own version -- called the Gazelle -- around Moscow in 1989.

Soviet leaders believed that McNamara's doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction was immoral. Offensive weapons were the problem, argued Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at a meeting with President Johnson. Defensive weapons were a necessity, he said, for protecting innocent civilians.

The Kremlin's contempt for America's political leaders reveals itself in Russia's non-compliance with the ABM and the SALT I Treaties. Whatever the "stupid Americans" do, Russia will defend its people. Russia will be ready when the next war begins. Russia will survive and win.

In 1982 President Ronald Reagan asked William R Graham to serve as the chairman of the president's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. This was a committee that oversaw the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. According to Graham, the General Advisory Committee met with Reagan, who asked them to review the history of past Russian compliance with the arms control treaties. According to Graham, the committee sought assistance from the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department, but these institutions were totally uncooperative. Nonetheless, after a year of research the panel came up with a classified report which concluded that the Russians routinely engaged in a systematic pattern of treaty violations.

"The ABM Treaty Charade," by William F. Lee, is an important book that deserves to be read by all Americans. The book relates the history of ABM research in America and Russia, and it goes into the gory details of Russian cheating. According to Lee the Russians have a vast hidden stockpile of ICBMs and nuclear bombs as well. This hidden arsenal was never accounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russian leaders, he suggests, are continuing to deceive us. Lee also shows that Russia has thousands of interceptor missiles with 18 battle management radars. We do not know how effective this system is, but national ABM defense is a reality for Russia. The United States has no defense whatsoever.

As America moves toward developing its own ABM defense, we must not believe those ignorant voices which talk about how destabilizing it will be if America has a defensive system. Some of our politicians will point to the ABM Treaty. But the ABM Treaty is not being kept by Russia. According to William Lee, who also worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, "Given the relatively small number of U.S. missile and bomber warheads likely to survive a Russian preemptive strike under START II, if Russia can maintain its Triad of strategic offensive and defensive forces, it will become the preeminent nuclear superpower."

Lee has meticulously documented the Russian ABM violations, and his evidence should satisfy all reasonable skeptics. As for his qualifications, Lee served as a Soviet and economic analyst at the CIA from 1951 until 1964. He also worked at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) where he headed the interdisciplinary threat analysis teams that forecasted Soviet and Chinese armament developments. Lee joined the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1981 where he worked as an analyst until his retirement in 1992.

For those interested in Lee's book, it can be acquired by calling the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies at (202) 371-2700.


-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 02, 1999

Answers

Above article is by:

J.R. Nyquist

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 02, 1999.

An even simpler way to shoot down missiles is included in a book at this site: http://www.earthpulse.com/ called Angels Don't Play This HAARP. The technology, which uses electromagnetic pulses, has been around since the early 1900's, and was used by Nikola Tesla. The Russians could not nuke us by missile any longer.

-- ChefTRD (ChefTRD@hotmail.com), November 02, 1999.

not any effective ones

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), November 02, 1999.

All of this presupposes that the nuclear weapons will be delivered by missile. It would be far cheaper to put them in large sea-land containers and ship them (via intermediate ports). But you might need to know that you were going to attack some months earlier...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 02, 1999.

The last time looked at the issue was when the SDI was proposed under President Reagan. Basically, vs another super power like the old Soviet Union, any defence would have leaks with current technology. However, the majority of the missles would have been destroyed. Enough so that the "A" was taken out of the policy of MAD. (Mutally Assured Destruction). Since a crippling first strike capability would have been almost certainly denied the Soviets by a missle defence, the risks of waging a nuclear war would have been unacceptable. Now that we don't have a nuclear foe with that kind of launch capability a balistic missle defence would come in handy for launches by rouge states with just a few missles.

Of course, when the Chinese exploit the technology they purchased from our current president we'll be back in the same boat as we were in the seventies.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.not), November 02, 1999.

Anyone who can smuggle 2000 kilograms of coke into this country can smuggle a nuke into this country. Anyone who can fly a cessna into the Kremlin and get a nuke into Russia. Leaders in both countrys don't care about their people but when their own butts are on the line, they try real hard not to mistakes.

-- (...@.......), November 02, 1999.

Back in the 60's, when the cold war was pretty hot, I read that the thermal radiation from a 100 megaton H-bomb detonated on a clear day 90 miles above (say) Buffalo, NY, would ignite everything flammable in several eastern states. At that range the nuclear radiation would not be a threat, and there would be no shockwave since the shot would be outside the atmosphere. But everything flammable covers an awful lot of ground. With everything on the surface that could burn burning in five or six states, the distraction could provide an opportunity for other noxious activity.

The trouble is that every new defense system mobilizes the antagonist to develop an offensive system to defeat it.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 02, 1999.

Cross-post from a previous thread...

Gentlemen... Actually, the cold war was a farce. The entire time we spent pretending to be "enemies" of the USSR, our illustrious "leaders" were giving away the farm right under our noses. We have to learn to watch what they do, not just listen to what they say. There was NEVER any threat of nuclear war. I KNOW how very preposterous that must sound, I laughed the first time I had heard it, but I DID the research and it was all too true. Why do we still honor Soviet treaties if there is no such place? Why did we send all of that money to our "sworn" enemies? Why did we give them our educational curriculum in 1954? And people wonder what's wrong with the public fool system. If we hadn't created the USSR with our own tax dollars, they never would have been able to be passed off as a world power.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 30, 1999.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 03, 1999.

Nabi,

People like to put Nyquist up as a straw man and then knock him down like he is alone in his analysis. How many of his critics will read Lee, Pry, or Douglas to get to the facts? I doubt any.

Denial of a threat does not make it any less real. The threat is real, the timing is at its peak. The destruction possible is unimaginable.

We are sitting ducks. We have no defense against the soviets. Well, we have One but who will lead us to turn to Him?

My only comfort is found in the following:

"The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as His heritage!

The LORD looks down from heaven, He sees all the sons of men; from where He sits enhroned He looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds. A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse (any vehicle that carries weapons) is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.

Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, on those who hope in His stedfast love, that He might deliver their soul from death and keep them alive in famine.

Our soul waits for the LORD, He is our help and shield. Yea, our heart is glad in HIm, because we trust in His holy name. Let thy steadfast love, O LORD, be upon us, even as we hope in Thee." Psalm 33:10-22

(See also Psalm 2, 11, 46, 91; Daniel 2; Zechariah 13:8,9.

In the only safe Refuge,

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 03, 1999.

BB- Thanks for the perspective. As an individual Orthodox the Psalm is Truth and comfort. As an American citizen, I worry for our country, warts and all. No, it's not the same country it was 50 years ago. Yes, we are accurately described as living in a post-Christian culture. Sure, there are folks on this board who consider your post OT and let me say that I would grieve all the more for the persons who do not share the Faith in the event of an attack.

Why is my post not 'OT'? When Israel had fallen away and fell under an invasion force that used weapons of mass destruction, Israelitites who were faithful died right along with those who were not. Weapons of mass destruction have been around for a long time, not just our more efficient(?) ICBM's. In fact, one might argue that in real costs, a Mongol army was more cost-effective and efficient in exterminating every living thing in it's way than and ICBM. Lower tech, sure, but cheaper. Dead is dead, whether it's from decapitation or in

-- Magnolia (magnooliaa@yahoo.com), November 03, 1999.

I, for one, intend to where one of those metal spaghetti strainers on my head starting Jan 1. (This moronic response is symptomatic of the final stages of "Y2K stress syndrome".)

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 03, 1999.

LINK:

http://oism.org/nwss/

dammit it won't work...oh well. Great Nuke war Guide...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), November 03, 1999.

Thanks Billy Boy... I hadn't seen this site before.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 03, 1999.

Here's a link for some construction materials:

href="http://www.xsw.com/securehome/eqiplist.html" Skousen's list of supplies etc.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 04, 1999.

Here's a link for some construction materials:

href="http://www.xsw.com/securehome/eqiplist.html" Skousen's list of supplies etc.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 04, 1999.

One more time:

Link

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 04, 1999.

Sheeeesh, what's this, Nabi's weekly paranoia thread again? Using the old politically motivated World Net Daily propaganda again I see. You know I use to think I wanted to join the Libertarian party until I discovered those scoundrels. Their whole strategy to getting control of this country is divide and conquer. They might as well be Russians with the kind of shit they are doing. Sheesh Nabi, you got poor BB begging for the Lord to come and save his ass. Scaring the people is not going to make our country any stronger.

Listen to Patrick McHenry, the guy knows what he's talking about. Russia is not going to bite the hand that feeds them, they are just scared shitless that NATO is going to try to force them to join their New World Order. If anybody is going to start a World War it will be the NWO.

If you want to stop this from happening, join the rest of us who want to cut off their lifeline. Get your money out of the banks, quit supporting the multinational corporation mega-mergers by buying corporate products, and reduce your oil consumption as much as possible by using transportation and energy alternatives.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 04, 1999.

Hawk,

Get a clue will you. It's too late for the horsecrap you propose. Your ignorance of what is really going on in Russia is typical of Americas knowledge of Russia in general. Nabi and I have been on the same page on communism for a long time, where have you been? I'm not begging the Lord to save my butt. I'm already saved. Praise God. I'm begging Him for people like you who go blindly led by the blind toward the cliff. If you don't think Russia is mobilizing for war, and you won't read worldnetdaily, then read Peter Pry or Douglas' "The Red Cocaine". Or read Joel Skousen's World Affairs, or Christopher Story's "Soviet Analyst" or Statfor.com or CSIS's reports, or Frank Gaffney's Center for Security policy. Sheez

Since you choose to ignore Nyquist's reporting there is nothing I or Nabi can do. We are watchmen on the wall warning Americans of the dangers we face. As usual, the messenger gets blamed. That's ok, we will continue to do our patriotic and Christian duty. We know we face an unbelieving denialist mindset. But your blood is off our hands. I hope you can fly.

I have no political agenda. I fought for freedom and I'll continue to do so. As far as paranoia goes, "It's not paranoia when your fears are based on facts." -Tom Sullivan

And as one man said, "If you don't face the facts, they're likely to stab you in the back." -Winston Churchhill (Who by God's grace replaced Chamberlain who refused to believe Hitler was a threat.)

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 04, 1999.

Hawk,

As BB more than adequately demonstrated, you don't really know what you're talking about. Opinions are great, but maybe you should occasionally do a little research before you share yours.

Perceiving a real threat from a country that has the means and the motive to destroy the US is not paranoia, it's simply common sense. Unfortunately, that's something that's in short supply in this country any more...

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.

Limited nuclear response to Russia taking out 4 U.S. cities. We take out 3 Russian cities. Some time later their is a more widespread nuclear war. Between China and Russia acting in league and the element of surprise, America is taken down.

China invades from and occupies the west coast. Russia invades the east coast and occupies the east. The only resistance comes from the homegrown militia's defending their homes. The U.S. military becomes totaly useless and worthless thanks to Clinton, the feminists and turning from God.

Now is the time to prepare.

S. David Bays Prophet

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), November 04, 1999.

Now is the time to prepare.

S. David Bays Prophet

Prophet, huh? Perhaps you should read Ezekiel 38 & 39 and understand that God will put a hook in their nose and the victory will be His. There is no fear of Russia coming to "take a spoil" as it were, they're already here, and the spoil is gone! Do you really know so little of Prophesy and then declare yourself a Prophet?

"Raush" has been here for some time, all the while making it "look" like they are still "coming." A Prophet must know who's who in the zoo in the world before accurately assessing the situation, AND he must be VERY careful how he builds on "that foundation"... I think I see a brick or two out of place Mr. Bays.

Further... a "prophet" in the Hebrew, means only "a spokesman for God." Not the foolishness of "seeing" the future, at least, not any moreso than is already laid out for you by God Himself through His living word. I seriously doubt if ANY of the ancient "prophets" had the temerity to label themselves as such, far too presumptous.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 04, 1999.

Is There A Defense Against Nuclear Attack?

Yeah, get r-e-a-l.......R-E-A-L-------- flexible....then bend down, put your head between your legs.....

And kiss your @ss good-bye!

-- Shadowy Imprint (burnt.into.@.wall.just.like.Hiroshima), November 04, 1999.

Nabi,

Russia has had more than enough power to destroy the entire world for many decades. If they wanted to use this in an offensive attack they would have done it a long time ago, but they ain't stupid like you idiots. Any of this buildup of new weapons you see is a DEFENSIVE buildup. They know goddam well that if they even attempt to dick around with the United States or any NATO country that NATO is going to pummel them into smithereens.

Right now China and Russia have a pretty good notion that eventually the NATO union is going to want to incorporate them into their New World Order, and they don't want any part of it. Russia is not stupid enough to start anything, but if NATO tries to pick a fight, they want to be prepared to defend themselves. We are loaning Russia tons of money and they like it, in fact they couldn't survive without us.

You got to understand that there is more propaganda about the subject of an attack by Russia than any other topic. That includes this crap that Nyquist is feeding you and most of the books you read. It's pure speculation, intended to sensationalize the issue and make lots of money pushing books.

Fostering this kind of paranoia is dangerous if it begins to affect the masses. The mass conciousness creates the reality, so when people begin to believe as you believe, in their minds they begin to make Russia become our enemy, when there is no rational basis to do this. It is this kind of thinking that might eventually cause some wacko to get a hold of a nuke and detonate it in Russia, thinking that he is saving the United States from being taken over by "Satan" Russia. By distorting the true reality with fear, you create a reality in which a world war could actually occur, that would otherwise not have happened.

Good luck with that approach, but it is far too negative for me to accept. If you are such a believer in religion, perhaps you should consider the possibility that what you are doing is the work of Satan, and that you may in fact be possessed. Your creative energies are being applied toward an objective which is not going to make things any better, and is very likely to make matters worse.

Via con dios

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 04, 1999.

Hawk,

I have come to the conclusion that you are either of Russian descent (and therefore biased), you are a Russian agent, or you are simply too clueless to realize how ignorant you are. I don't mean ignorant in a bad sense, just totally devoid of the relevant facts of this issue.

Before you declare me to be demon-possessed for what I'm saying, you might want to read the Scriptures that address what you've just done (Matt. 12:24-32; Mark 3:22-30).

IF the message I'm bringing is from God, and not from Satan, then you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. "...Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32).

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

Nabi, Hawk is really @ and not of Russian descent.....it's worse than that. Then he'd have an excuse. He's a liberal Democrat. That should explain why explaining anything to him is a total waste of time. Ignore him and he will go away.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlanticx.net), November 05, 1999.

Sounds like a good plan, BB. I think I'll try it...

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

Nabi,

"I have come to the conclusion that you are either of Russian descent (and therefore biased), you are a Russian agent, or you are simply too clueless to realize how ignorant you are."

BWAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA!!

That's right Nabi, everybody is a Russian agent, and we're all out to get you. Also, watch out for those people who carry a briefcase, they have nukes in there, and if you piss them off... KAAABOOOM!!

BB,

Roget's definition of liberal (synonyms);

advanced, avant-garde, broad-minded, catholic, enlightened, flexible, free, high-minded, humanistic, intelligent, left, lenient, libertarian, magnanimous, progressive, rational, reasonable, receptive, tolerant, unconventional, understanding, unprejudiced

Roget's definition of conservative (synonyms);

bourgeois, controlled, conventionalist, diehard, fearful, firm, moderate, obstinate, obstructionist, orthodox, reactionary, redneck, right-wing, traditionalist, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive

Thanks for the compliment pal, I've ALWAYS been PROUD to be a LIBERAL person and ALWAYS WILL BE!!

Regardless of what lies your narrow-minded bigot friend Rush Limbaugh tells you about liberals, we are FAR SUPERIOR to you unimaginative, fearful, unprogressive, right-wing conservatives any day!

But hey, if you prefer to live in fear of other people rather than open your mind a little bit, who am I to stop you. Was only hoping to help you see the light, but you are obviously too undaring and obstinate to even consider being progressive for a change. How sad.

Via con Dios, amigos

(*V*)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 05, 1999.

-- Patrick said "Prophet, huh? Perhaps you should read Ezekiel 38 & 39 and understand that God will put a hook in their nose and the victory will be His. There is no fear of Russia coming to "take a spoil" as it were, they're already here, and the spoil is gone! Do you really know so little of Prophesy and then declare yourself a Prophet?

"Raush" has been here for some time, all the while making it "look" like they are still "coming." A Prophet must know who's who in the zoo in the world before accurately assessing the situation, AND he must be VERY careful how he builds on "that foundation"... I think I see a brick or two out of place Mr. Bays.

Further... a "prophet" in the Hebrew, means only "a spokesman for God." Not the foolishness of "seeing" the future, at least, not any moreso than is already laid out for you by God Himself through His living word. I seriously doubt if ANY of the ancient "prophets" had the temerity to label themselves as such, far too presumptous."

S. David Bays responds:

You know not what you say. You are collosal in your egocentricity. Further you lack basic knowledge of the bible and the above statements prove it. If you had studied before exposing you foolishness you would know that the bible deals with Israel primarily. You should know that judgments also happen in other parts of the world that are not covered in the bible. That does not mean that God does not reveal his coming judgments to His people. To warn them to repent.

America WILL be occupied for a season. Then the occupiers will be destroyed when the Lord raises up an army.

You, Patrick, are either 1) A false Christian who claims to be one. 2) A Christian in need of repentance. 3)A troll on his way to destruction.

I shake the dust off my feet.

SDB, prophet of the Lord Jesus, who having appeared to me, called on me to Give Him Glory.

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), November 06, 1999.