Someone in a post below about nukes stated that the Russians have a system where if their nukes don't get a regular computer generated pulse from Moscow, ALL of their nukes launch. This scares the hell out of me. Can anyone confirm this?

Do we have any nuclear weapon experts that can shed some light on the risk from nukes? I'd like to know if I should be able to sleep at night, or prepare to die. I can't prepare for 4000 nukes headed my way.

Thank you in advance.

-- Scared (Guy@Home.Today), November 14, 1999

Answers

The name of the system is Perimeter (sp?) and it was first revealed by Janes Defense weekly, a highly respectable and trustworthy publication. Basically the system listens for timed interval signals from Moscow, and failing to recieve one it will launch a communications satelite automatically which will in turn broadcast launch orders for all of the available nuclear missiles. The United States is the default target. There has been absolutely no mention of this system in the daily propoganda of joint monitoring centers, nor any indication that it has been deactivated. Of course the Russians don't even admit it exist. I don't have a link to the origional articles but I have postted them on this forum in past nuclear war threads, and you should be able to run a search on Janes website to get the origional.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 14, 1999.

---yes, they DO have this as part of their military doctrine. the russians have always thought that nuclear war was both inevitable with the west, and that it was winnable by them. That traitor klintunes has sold us down the river. He disappeared into moscow and who knows where for about 6 weeks back in his alledgred oxford student days. He has NEVER explained publically what went on then. since then, all of his public actions, in one way or another, have gone to two things- accumulating more personal power, and promoting the international socialist/"Progressive"/NWO globalist aims. the media has been his biggest ally and friend. think about how much ridiculous monica coverage there was, and all the real toughie issues got obfuscated or ignored. geez, there hasn't been ANY mass media coverage of the "arkanicide" phenomenon, for example. This is a HUGE concern. the "cold war" has NOT ended, and if one will do only a cursory inspection of the communists openly stated goals and timelines you'll see they are following their decades in advance plan to a T. They have seemingly "given back" eastern europe-this is a chimera to get western aid, money, bank credits, and most importantly for them, the press that they have "softened". they have a very advanced ABM system in place, while they threaten us to not even consider our own. the king has stopped our protective launch on warning doctrine, ordering military commanders to ABSORB a first strike! The russians have not ceased production and stockpiling of biological and chemical warfare stocks, and those NBC forces are fullt integrated at all levels in their military, and they use bio/chem in all their little wars. it's DAMN scary. Her's an excellent article by Joel Skousen, nationally known strategist and researcher.:

JOEL M. SKOUSEN'S WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF: Commentary And Insights On A Troubled World

Weekly Internet Brief --http://www.xsw.com/worldbrief. Monthly Paper Version: 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058

Editor In Chief: Joel M. Skousen. Tel/Fax (801) 224-4746 Email: jskousen@enol.com. Mail: 290 W. 580 S. Orem Ut 84058

Subscriptions: $24/year for weekly Email version, $48/year monthly hardcopy. All mid-year subscribers will receive back issues to cover a full year's subscription. Those who desire both the email and print edition pay the print price.

Copyright Joel M. Skousen Readers may freely disseminate this article when credit is given to Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief

BACKGROUNDER #2

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE WITHOUT "LAUNCH ON WARNING" --A DEADLY MYTH

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 and 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 President Clinton's demand to the joint chiefs in early 1997 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America's nuclear warhead deployment to 2,000 to 2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of START II disarmament treaty (which has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma). General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn't comply since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Directive of 1981 to prepare to "win a protracted nuclear war." A winning strategy couldn't be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.

According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (Nov/Dec 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 towards 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 Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states that Russia could no longer support. For one, there was the phony Gorbachev "coup" that was so patently contrived and parroted by the western media. Eric Honeker, former head of the German DDR stated before his death that he was instructed by Moscow to step down and yield East Germany to the West. Romania's dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu said he got the same orders to step down, but refused, and had to be forcibly removed by another phony coup, made to look like an uprising of anti-communists (which it was not). 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 syphoning 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.

For those that still hold to the wave of propaganda focusing on the so called "deteriorating Russian military situation", consider the new Topol-M (SS-X-27) ICBM that Russia is deploying at the rate of 3 per month. This is a brand new 6th generation ICBM with a claimed active electronic jamming system claimed by Russia to be able to penetrate any future ABM system the U.S. might deploy. Not only is the Clinton Administration not protesting this deployment, they are offering to allow the Russians to turn this supposedly single warhead missile into a MIRV capable missile of 3 warheads--all to assuage the Russians who are livid at even the hint that we might build a meager 200 intercepter, dumbed down missile defense system.

Again, realists have to question why the Russians (and the Chinese) are so upset over the potential of any U.S. missile defense system, if they, indeed, have no hostile intentions. But there's lots more: defectors tell of whole new biological and chemical weapons plants, and underground nuclear weapons factories and bunkers being built into massive city-sized complexed beneath the Ural Mountains--all the while claiming to be destitute of money. Something doesn't compute here.

Contrast this with the Clinton Administrations response. Incredibly, while still play lip service to nuclear deterrence, Asst. Sec. 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 military:

"Under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, we decided to:

eliminate our entire inventory of ground-launched nonstrategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles); Remove all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases; Remove our strategic bombers from alert; Stand down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I Terminate the mobile Peacekeeper and mobil small ICBM programs and Terminate 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 (Sub launched missiles) warheads Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles Stop 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." Asst. Sec. 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 the 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kasakhstan and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252 ICBM's and related silos--all paid for with US taxpayer funds to the tune of 300 million per year. But the real story is otherwise. Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these system--the oldest and most out of date in the Soviet inventory. They were scheduled for replacement anyway, so the US 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 isn't all. What the administration doesn't 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 didn't 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 US in both throw weight and nuclear delivery vehicles. That disparity is widening dramatically with the Clinton Administration's 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 3 MIRVed warheads on each missile instead of the treaty limit of 1 warhead--for a total deployment of 1500 warheads. Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the current Russian inventory, these 1500 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 Moscow's powerful shroud of secrecy) the Russian threat is much greater than it ever was, both in quantity and quality of strategic nuclear forces--thanks, in part, to ongoing technology transfers by IBM and other defense contractors with the knowing participation and encouragement of this administration.

Now let's take a close look at this presumed increased deterrence the Clinton Department of Defense is promising. The administration claims their brand of deterrence is still based upon 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. Let's examine this closely. MAD could only stand as a viable assumption if

1.both sides had sufficient weapons and delivery vehicles to inflict total devastation 2.neither side had an effective anti-ballistic missile system 3.neither side had electronic jamming capability on their incoming ICBMs 4.neither side had hardened shelters protecting their 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% of her weapons in reserve, for a prolonged conflict.

Second, we have no ABM system to protect against ICBMs at all. Our dummed down and slowed down Patriots are theater weapons (built to conform to the flawed ABM treaty) and can hardly 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 who launches second to have an advantage over the nation who launches first. The one to launch first wastes a certain number of their missiles on our silos which are now empty. Whereas, 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. National Security Advisor 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." (emphasis added).

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 don't 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 communications 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. ---now, don't despair--first you have to have a "Survivalist Mindset". You CAN protect yourself. and the easiest way is by living in a geographical area that is outside the immediate target area, and by being far enough upwind. this is simpl;istic, and it's the subject of entire books, but it's doable, and the rresources are out there to make a secure shelter. You need to skip "Y2K" for a few evenings, and instead peruse some of the better books and links. Just recently "Nuclear War survival skills" went online. This is a great book, full of practical and inexpernsive methods of constructting your own shelters and protecting yourself. don't give up, this is DOABLE for most people.

dig harder zog

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 14, 1999.

Scared,

In the Army I was a "gun bunny", field artillery. The guns never fired without a lot of safety checks. We always had projectiles on board, self propelled howitzer, M109, but we never carried the powder, primers or firing locks on a daily basis. The firing lock, and primers, were kept in the armory and only issued to us when we were in the field practicing. The powder and additional ammo was kept under guard in the ammo dump. We never fired our guns until a safety officer checked the deflection and quadrant, targeting. After he signaled all clear the chief of smoke gave the firing command.

If there are so many safety checks on field pieces it seems very reasonable to me that there are even greater safety checks on a nuke. The M109, 155mm, is nuclear capable but only a small team was ever trained in operating the guns in that capacity.

If a nuke is ever launched it will have been no accident.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), November 14, 1999.

I was just wondering if any of you have ever walked up to a grizzly bear in the woods and offered him a bite of your cheeseburger? That just about sums up Clintons nuclear defence policy.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 14, 1999.

Assuming this exists, pardon me while I go vomit.

I hope they disable that communications satellite........

-- Sick (To@My.Stomach), November 14, 1999.

Sorry, but this topic is absolutely USELESS to think about unless you can disable that system.

-- Mista Spock (nobody@really.net), November 14, 1999.

If this is a true scenario... I pray I am at ground zero of the first strike...

growlin' at the idiot on TV...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), November 14, 1999.

There are no winners here!

-- 88888888888 (karlacalif@aol.com), November 14, 1999.

if a country (Russia) is paranoid of another country (U.S.) and they know that at rollover their infrastructure will probably collapse..and...the US will be FAR superior for at least 12 hours (time line), do you (Russia) launch BEFORE your country hits 01/01/00?

Will Russia launch if China, Taiwan, etc. has major infrastructure problems at rollover and the time line is approaching them?

YOU BET THEY DO

they will launch BEFORE their systems can degrade further

-- bob brock (bb@myhouse.com), November 14, 1999.

Mark Hillyard-- I wish those safety checks on artillery had been in place at Camp Maxey, Texas in 1944. 99th Inf. Div. had been stripped down to cadre and refilled with guys from cancelled ASTP programs. In live fire close support training -- where the infantry waits for artillery fire to scrub the brush 100 yards ahead, then moves up -- one battery fired short. The blunder killed more than a hundred troops in the company just to the left of mine.

In the next few days I found out that (at that time) 5% casualties were anticipated in combat training.

Stuff happens. Murphy rules.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 14, 1999.

I have an article that references Perimeter. It can be found at http://www.thenation.com/issue/990315/0315sanders.shtml. I heard that Mike Wallace called "Jane's Intelligence Review" a commercial CIA.

M

-- Meandi (Meandi@a.ref), November 14, 1999.

Have my doubts that any sane organization would do that (guess that's in question). Don't lose any sleep over what you might not be able to defend against.

One "minor" point though. Not all those warheads are likely to contain nuclear weapons. Many will be worse, ie. biologicals. Only defense is not to be in harms way.

DCK (60 miles north of SF, in the boonies near the coast)

-- Don Kulha (dkulha@vom.com), November 14, 1999.

The earlier system was called launch on command (requierd a command to launch to be received). This system is called something like 'launch inhibit' or something like that. We were toying with implimenting this type of system in the 1980's, but I think it was voted down.

The Russians know that they can launch every nuke they have and can only take out 2/3rds of our launchers at most. Our deep sea based nukes will obliterate their entire industrial complex and send them back to the dark ages for 1000 years. That's MAD for ya. They can hunker and bunker down all they want to and still emerge as cavemen in the aftermath. I suppose that's called 'winning'.

I think they are more concerned about reconquering their empire than in destroying the US. I would be concerned if I lived in Europe though.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), November 14, 1999.

dit dot, I'm guessing you overlooked the fact that the launch codes have been removed from our nuclear subs. And that out of a total of eighteen Tridents only three to four are actually on station at any given time. The rest are sitting on the surface in their home ports awaiting instant destruction. Those three or four that are at sea have half their missile tubes full of concrete as ballast to replace the missing missiles. They are outnumbered by the Russian fast attack subs by a margin of 20 to 1. I wouldn't say that's exactly a credible deterrent.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 14, 1999.

---also, on our boomers, if I'm not mistaken, once they launch one missile, then about 15 minutes later a small nuke arrives in their vicinity that causes a shockwave in the water that will take them out to about 50 miles. I don't think even our fastest boomers can go that fast. I'll ask around to verify this, but I'm pretty sure about it. --I think we'll be blackmailed into neutrality. Hidden back pack nukes, biologicals, and conventional spetsnaz attacks on the civilian infrastructure. It would take maybe just a couple hundred sleeper agents to muck up quite a bit in several major cities. and who doubts that they might have that many over here? add in chinese agents, north koreans, cubans, islamic who know's, and ther's thousands of bad guys in place already, most likely. Just a-waiting. I'm not talking millions of theoretical NWO troops, just a couple thousand, from various countries around the world. I mean, I live in a farming community that has hundreds and hundreds of most likely illegal immigrant farm workers. No one cares much. there aren't any background checks on these folks. and all the big cities have huge populations of various folks from various areas of the world. how much REAL back ground checking is done on these people? it's zip, that's how much. Our borders are wide open for anyONE or anyTHING to cross. the nukes and bios and chems are here, and so are the agents. It's a gimmee......

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 14, 1999.

And if we do manage to get off a few shots from those subs before they are vaporized our missiles will have to get through those ten to twelve THOUSAND nuclear tipped ABM's. If I lived in America I'd be concerned....

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 14, 1999.

dit dot wrote: "I think they are more concerned about reconquering their empire than in destroying the US. I would be concerned if I lived in Europe though."

So dot, do you think that the US would just sit back and let Russia take Europe? Do you think Russia thinks we would sit back and allow them to take Europe? They have to destroy us in order to take Europe (which IS their primary objective). So where does that leave us?

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), November 14, 1999.