There is something very dangerous and wrong about this new war fever being pushed upon the American people. Taking advantage of a nation shocked and shaken after being "under attack," the Bush administration is showing every sign of marshaling a much larger military force than necessary to tackle the stated enemy--international terrorism. Terrorism is a distributed and dispersed threat. It is not concentrated in any single country. There are perhaps two dozen significant terrorist training camps in the world, and any one of them can be neutralized by the judicious use of point air strikes and special forces. There are hundreds of smaller terrorist cells in all western countries. Some are too well hidden to be found, but many can be tackled by existing intelligence and police agencies. The point I am making, as forcefully as possible, is that this problem does not have to be attacked with a Gulf War style mobilization--which is precisely what President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are building. Something is very wrong with the growing beat of Republican war drums. The 50,000 reservists being mobilized alone exceed by almost 10 times the number of known terrorists in the world. There appears to be a hidden agenda behind these major war preparations--and fighting terrorism may well be only the excuse.

First, I want to establish that the official US response to this terrorist attack showing surprise, shock and indignation is, in part, a sham. For years the US government has known and tracked every significant terrorist organization to raise its head, and yet has done little to impede their growth or target their weapons procurement lines (with the exception of one attack on a Libyan terrorist training camp in the 80's, and those camps were back in operation within months). There is even evidence of US intelligence agencies turning a blind eye on terrorist preparations for just such an attack as happened this week. As Reed Irvine, writing for NewsMax.com, reported,

"In 1995, when one of his (Osama bin Laden's) followers, Abdul Hakim Murad, was arrested in Manila, the Philippine authorities discovered a plot on his laptop computer that called for hijacking US airliners and bombing them or crashing them into targets, including the CIA. It was called Project Bojinka, and US officials were made aware of it at that time. Murad admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission. He was extradited to the US and convicted, together with Ramzi Yousef, of participating in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That should have focused the attention of the CIA, FBI and NSA on any indications that bin Laden had not abandoned Project Bojinka. Reports that bin Laden was training pilots should have set alarm bells ringing. Only a few months ago an American Airlines crew had their uniforms and ID badges stolen from their hotel room in Rome. At the end of August, the airline alerted its employees to be on the lookout for impostors, but apparently no one saw this as a possible link to Project Bojinka. Airport security remained as lax as ever. Next came bin Laden's warning in mid-August that there would be 'an unprecedented attack on US interests.' With Bojinka in mind, the government should have taken the strongest possible measures to prevent hijackings."

So, why should this nation be surprised when it finally falls victim to an enemy the US has allowed to prosper? It's partially because Americans always believe the half-truths about our government's efforts to stamp out terrorism, or even drugs, for that matter. Simply put, the people don't realize that the government both harbors terrorism and fights terrorism with two different sides of its police power. It both facilitates drug importation (to fund black budget activities) and fights against drugs using competing portions of separate federal agencies. Naturally, the public only sees the "good guy" operations. But the dark side exists, and now predominates--under the surface.

Terrorists have had the motive, the hatred, the weapons and the will to attack the US for many years. Indeed, we in this nation are very vulnerable. So, why has America been spared for so many years? As I have pointed out before in these briefs, the only reason that Islamic terrorism has not struck before (with the exception of the failed bombing of the WTC in 1993) is that someone within the US who controls these terror networks has had a "hold" on any attacks on the US, accomplished by buying off terrorist groups with money, drugs and weapons. Part of the reason for that hold was to reserve the US for "domestic terrorism" that could be fomented by the dark side of government to blacken the reputation of the American right wing. That hold is now obviously gone as the government's ploy to make an enemy out of the right wing has run its course. Accordingly, we can expect Tuesday's attack to be just the beginning. Next, I expect to see terrorists use biological and chemical weapons, or even Stinger missiles left over from the Afghanistan war, to shoot down more airliners. Again, we'll hear the same "wake-up call" that is being trumpeted by government this week. Naturally, we will be unprepared for each new form of attack and as each new threat looms greater, some new and powerful legislative or military solutions will be promulgated--complete with more and more restrictions of liberty.

Sadly, the most ominous effect of this latest attack has been the negation of all the distrust of government that had been properly building during 8 years of the Clinton corruption. I am saddened by the abject submission of the American people to any edict the government attempted to justify in the wake of these attacks. It amounted to a partial use of martial law and the government didn't even have to use the term to enforce its edicts. Now President Bush has declared a National Emergency--without telling the people that former executive orders give the President unlimited powers in such situations. He won't use them just yet--but people will get used to living under an "emergency" form of law, without realizing the full implications. In future attacks people will already have become accustomed to seeing the government shut down any sector of the nation that is affected, just as we saw the virtual shutdown of the air traffic system--including private aircraft flying to private fields. However, the price in billions of dollars lost to the economy will not go unnoticed as the recession deepens.

In the final analysis, I hold the US government in large part responsible for the events of September 11, because they have paid off, trained, swapped favors with, and even saved from destruction terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden and Yassir Arafat for decades. If they didn't have intelligence specifically pointing to the use of hijacked airliners as weapons of destruction, they are at least guilty of having abetted this form of terror.

Conjecture abounds as to how, when and where the US intends to retaliate, but it's clear now that the US intends to make a BIG military statement to the world, and Osama bin Laden is to be the whipping boy. Frankly, I'm not sure what the Bush CFR team is up to, but whatever it is, it is looking ominous. My best guess is that they are going to take on Afghanistan with both air and ground troops. This is a foolish quagmire that the Russians stepped into and you'd think the US would be smart enough not to go down that road. But I suspect Bush may be promoting another agenda, which dovetails with the US/NATO intervention in the Balkans during the last decade--fomenting hatred of the US among the Eastern Bloc of Slavic peoples. If NWO powers intend to use a world War to accelerate the transition to world government, they need to help the attackers (Russia and China) to justify the attack on the West. US meddling and bullying around the world creates that hatred. Obviously, the Islamic world is aligned with the Russians, and thus I suspect that in this upcoming "war" the Powers That Be may have decided to spread even more hatred of America among the Muslims by taking on Afghanistan, in what will appear to the Arab world as a giant unjustly terrorizing a helpless and poor land.

If the insiders at the National Security Council (who really call the shots for Bush) want an even larger war than Afghanistan would provide, they could go after the dozen or so terrorist camps in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, and Libya. But this would surely usher in a major Middle East war, involving Israel. It would also pit the US directly against Yassir Arafat and his Palestinians--which the US is continually trying to protect from ultimate annihilation. I don't think the insiders want a full scale war in that region just yet.

Lastly, Bush could go after Iraq, like his father. However, there doesn't seem to be any new evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in this terror attack. Besides, attacking Iraq is old news and will hardly give a sense of "justice done" that Americans are so wistfully yearning for.

I originally suspected that all this "war preparation" was mere propaganda to justify the $40 billion Congress has agreed to fund this bottomless cause. I have since concluded that these leaders are investing much more money and effort into this military buildup for simple sabre-rattling. They really do intend to go to war with someone larger than Osama bin Laden. A declaration of war, frankly, is meaningless unless you have an identifiable enemy to name as the object of the war. A one-sided declaration of war in this case would probably serve to justify more US interventionist warmongering at home and abroad, rather than fight terrorism. The secondary agenda is surely the consolidation of executive authority in the US. The predictable reactionary legislation to beef up US war-making powers in the name of fighting terrorism is already at Congress' door. The "Elimination of Terrorism Act" is being readied for a fast track treatment in both houses. Lost in the rhetoric, of course, is the fact that no additional powers are necessary to fight terrorism. Nevertheless, this bill gives the Executive Branch permanent powers to engage in warfare at any time without Congressional approval--an approach to which the founders of this nation would have vigorously rejected.

I am saddened to see how unscrutinizing people have become about the motives of government in a crisis. The reason so many people in the US are vulnerable to manipulation by the media in this regard is that they don't compare what the government does in any battle with what they could be doing--what the alternatives are. They only look at the government's story in isolation, as if its reasons stand alone and should be taken at face value. To a certain extent the public can't judge what's real because most people don't have much experience working inside government. Those of us who have been inside know how things work. When things don't follow according to how they are supposed to, experienced people see red flags indicating something unusual is occurring. There are red flags cropping up all over this excessive reaction to the events of September 11th. Let's look at the inconsistencies in the government investigation and its various pronouncements.


America is full of a strange mixture of shock, sadness, indignation and bravado in the wake of the aerial suicide attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers and the Pentagon. We have heard countless leaders vowing that "terrorism will not stand," and that Americans will bounce back and rebuild these symbols of American economic and military power--if nothing else, to deny the terrorists the joy of seeing America down and discouraged. All this is typically American in its arrogance and is very naive. Terrorism has only begun to strike America and we are terribly exposed--not only because of the free and open access which we rightfully cherish, but also because the political establishment has for years refused to interdict the training and arming of the known terrorist groups they now claim have committed an "act of war on America."

Government commentators echo the hollow words that "a sleeping giant has been awakened" and is filled with resolve. Hogwash! They said those same words in 1993 after the WTC bombing, and America quickly went back to sleep and all our anti-terrorist vows led to no significant diminution of the tens of terrorist networks and training camps around the world. Indeed, terrorist groups multiplied and became far better armed during the Clinton era. Worse, I don't believe for a minute that the current administration's retaliatory attacks being planned are truly meant to eradicate terrorism, let alone be effective at such an objective. They are targeting Osama bin Laden, a convenient scapegoat, while leaving the Palestinians untouched, who are the main source of support for Islamic terrorist activity. I will explain the motives behind government subterfuge, and help sort out the fact from the fiction in our government's response to this incident. But first, let's review how this act was accomplished, technically.


This terrorist act was a master stroke of planning and execution. It was a complex attack which could not have been done without the participation of larger groups already tracked by US intelligence. Yet there were at least three advantages to this strategy the perpetrators could count on. For one thing, the tactic itself came as a complete surprise. Attacking buildings via commandeered airliners is a tactic that had never been used before, and was nearly impossible to foresee. Counter-terrorist experts were all caught flat-footed. The perpetrators correctly realized that this kind of aerial attack is possible because of vulnerabilities in the airline security system. Once would-be perpetrators get past the airport security checkpoints the crews have no means of defense against them. Such an attack is also difficult to stop due to the presence of large numbers of hostages on board a hijacked airliner, coupled with the uncertainty about whether the hijackers intend on crashing it into a target or simply flying to an asylum destination (as in prior hijackings). How and when do you decide to shoot down a loaded airliner before the hijackers' intentions are known? And how do you confirm their intentions to crash into a target as it is descending incommunicado? Tough call!

Commandeering a huge aircraft full of fuel creates damage effects far exceeding the powers of a lone suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his body--or even a vehicular bomb as used in the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in the parking garage in February 1993. In this case, at least four commercial airline flights were targeted for hijacking--all within a 20 minute time frame for departure, in order to ensure the maximum impact of a coordinated attack. This all-at-one-time attack would preclude US forces from reacting and mounting an armed airborne patrol around targeted cities as a deterrent. I suspect there was a 5th or 6th flight destined to attack the White House and the US Capitol as well, but these were fortuitously delayed at the gate for some reason and missed their time slot. They were later canceled in the FAA grounding of all aircraft so that some of the potential hijacking never reached its grisly fulfillment. One such flight that was canceled had several Arab passengers aboard who vigorously protested the cancellation. An airline official said, according to the NY Times, "These guys got belligerent, and said something like, 'We've got to be on this plane'...They expressed a desire to remain on the plane and resisted getting off." The men left the area quickly after leaving the plane before police or the FBI could interrogate them.

All flights had things in common. First, they were all transcontinental flights. The two aircraft that hit the WTC were the larger Boeing 767 and the other two were Boeing 757 aircraft. Second, they were all taking off with a full load of fuel necessary to get to the West Coast. A full fuel load on the 767s ensured the maximum fireball in the subsequent explosions within the WTC. Let me explain why this was important. The perimeter steel pillars and cross bracing in the twin towers provided almost all the structural strength. The initial crashes partially severed one side of the perimeter support structure in each case, but the crashes alone would have been insufficient to destroy the towers. The subsequent fuel-fed fires heated the remaining pillars to the point of structural failure so that the entire buildings eventually came down. Steel beams and columns sag when exposed to fire--especially when an explosive impact strips away the protective fireproof coverings surrounding the steel. When the pillars on the damaged floors buckled from the heat, the falling weight of the imploding top portions of each building was enough to overstress all the steel in each succeeding floor beneath--that's why we observed the vertical domino effect. There was even sufficient collateral force from the falling debris as it spread outward at ground zero to heavily damage all surrounding buildings. The dramatic collapsing forces of the two towers caused the additional collapse of a neighboring 26-story building in the World Trade Center complex.

The time delay between the initial collisions and the final collapse allowed hundreds to escape the two buildings. Sadly, many were slowed or trapped on the upper floors and the roof of the WTC by either the existing damage or, as in one case, the well-meaning intentions of people enforcing an orderly exit. A few waited too long for an orderly exit didn't make it, including some valiant fire and rescue people who failed to anticipate the imminent collapse of the building.

In terms of getting weapons past security, the hijackers primarily brought makeshift and non-metallic knives in order to successfully evade discovery by airport metal detectors. Another potential tactic is to pose as a pilot or air crewman with false ID, but it does not appear at this time that any of the successful hijackings were done with weapons smuggled aboard by this method.. The Arab man arrested in NY two days later, as the airports reopened, was wearing a pilot's uniform and in possession of some identification not his own. He was also one of those who had a reservation on a transcontinental flight that didn't make it into the air on Tuesday. The FBI claimed on Friday that this man had no links to the terrorist act.

To achieve control over the aircraft, the hijackers, in at least one case, began stabbing stewardesses in order to lure one of the pilots out of the cockpit. Others may have made a direct attack on the cockpit door (which is fairly lightweight in composition). Pilots could then be overwhelmed, killed by stabbing, and the plane piloted by the hijackers to the targeted building.

The hijack planners most likely specified that the attack would take place on a cloudless day so as to make sure they could visually navigate to their destinations. While it is now known that the suicide-hijackers received some training in US simulators, run by private contractors, the variety of possible aircraft to train for and the complexity of the systems meant that such training would only lead to partial qualification at best. But full qualification or certification was not necessary. The hijackers did not have to deal with take-offs and landings, the most critical tasks. Taking over a flying aircraft and handling only the yoke and throttles to control altitude and airspeed is a relatively simple process.


While government and media sources continue to point the finger at US-trained terrorist Osama bin Laden, when pressed, all have to admit that there is only circumstantial evidence linking him to this act. That isn't stopping the Bush administration from acting as if bin Laden is guilty and leaning heavily on Pakistan to induce the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan to extradite him to the US.

In response to US demands, Pakistan and the Taliban have told the US they will be only too happy to comply with US demands for bin Laden's extradition if the US presents credible evidence of his involvement--which may be tough to come by. One former US CIA official was even more candid. He said, "no specific evidence is necessary since we've proven the case against bin Laden's cohorts in court recently and no one will question us if we go after him again." Sad, but true--Americans are all too willing to give unquestioned support to government in these times. I was also distressed to see a CNN internet poll showing that almost 80% of Americans condoned the bombing of the Afghanistan capitol of Kabul should the Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden. Where is America's compassion for innocent citizens? Would they become terrorists themselves in bombing innocent civilians simply to assuage their ruffled national sensibilities?

Focusing on Osama bin Laden may be a red herring meant to divert attention from the Palestinians, support for whom provides the fire and drive behind almost all other Islamic terrorist groups. I have no doubt that these terrorist acts were committed by Arab Islamic extremists with a mix of Palestinians who may or may not feel the need to hide behind religious motives. This radical branch of Arabs is the only culture on the planet intentionally producing committed suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots to slaughter innocent civilians. We also have specific evidence on the ethnicity of the attackers from cell phone callers on the doomed airlines who uniformly described the hijackers as Middle Eastern males, some wearing the tell-tale red bandannas identifying a unique terrorist group.

The FBI also claims to now know the identifies of 19 hijackers--all with Middle Eastern origins. Strangely they refuse to release the entire list publicly. Some of the 19 are Palestinians with links to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and US officials appear to be steering the blame away from them. I believe there exists a hidden protective inclination towards the Palestinians in our government operations--despite public support for the state of Israel. At least one Palestinian journalist filmed jubilant Palestinians rejoicing at the news of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (this is not the same film from 1993 erroneously broadcast as if it were taking place now). Israeli correspondent Oded Granot reported that Yasser Arafat's Tanzim have kidnapped the Palestinian cameraman who filmed a report for a major news agency showing Palestinians in Ramallah celebrating the attacks against the United States as hundreds cheered. He said that the news agency was warned that the cameraman would be killed if they dared to air the item. Other films have been released and photos from these films can be viewed at http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/cel.htm These threats are very real and are carried out ruthlessly from time to time. To demonstrate how far the Palestinians will go to perpetuate the appearance of innocence in this affair, PLO leader Yasser Arafat arranged to have film crews roll the cameras while he gave blood for the victims of NY. Even if his blood was destined for NY (which I doubt), I certainly wouldn't want to be the recipient of this hypocrisy.

So, who is responsible? It's going to be very difficult to find that out in a timely manner. Even a US defense source admitted to the International Herald Tribune, "We're talking about an operation that was extremely well-planned and compartmentalized...Such a case could take years to complete and we simply don't have that amount of time." That is why the US has decided to go after Osama bin Laden. Israeli intelligence, on the other hand, says (correctly) that all terrorist cells are supported and sponsored by one or more governments. Terrorist organizations need a steady flow of money, arms and explosives to do their work. Terrorist groups also need a broad base of intelligence operatives throughout the world to keep tabs on their targets. Governments provide this kind of support, but never allow those links to surface so as to avoid blame. Since the Bush administration keeps trying to build an Arab coalition against Iraq, it can't afford to go after any of the legitimate governments harboring terrorists--Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Iran. So that leaves Afghanistan to attack. But, just remember, unless the US goes after all the terrorist camps (including most refugee camps) in Arab countries, it isn't really serious about carrying on a war against terrorism.

It really isn't all that important to know who, at the lower and middle levels, planned and carried out this attack. Fact is, the US is hated by all the major Arab nations (except Kuwait) for its superficial support of Israel. Even Saudi Arabia is only feigning friendship with the US. The motive for Arab antagonism against the US does not really rests of the issue of Iraq, for Saddam Hussein has made his share of enemies in the Middle East. The real unifying motive of all the Arab terrorist organs is the Arab hatred toward the state of Israel, camped right in their midst. There are many factions of terrorists, and some are bitter enemies, but they can all unite on the desire to see the Israel and the US brought down. That is why the pictures of US destruction were so heartily applauded by young and old alike in the Middle East. In the final analysis, any war on terrorism is ultimately futile unless it punishes all terrorists uniformly, and the Palestinians specifically.


As the story of the tragedy unfolded, media talking heads were seemingly in the dark about what was happening and who was responsible for these crashes. The first collision with the WTC was viewed as a possible accident. By the time the second happened, some 16 minutes later, everyone began to suspect terrorism. Yet from the very beginning, many moments before any building was hit, there was one very public government body that had crucial information that a hijacking had taken place, or at the very least that an aircraft was veering away from its destination and heading for NY--the FAA. Airline crashes and hijackings ring big alarm bells at the FAA which monitors and controls all commercial traffic. By law, all commercial aircraft flying in controlled airspace are in constant communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC). Thus, the FAA is going to know when something goes wrong.

A hijacking takes time to complete. Pilots are behind a locked cockpit door, so hijackers cannot burst in without flight attendants having a least a few seconds to alert the flight deck. There are intercom stations at both ends of each aircraft accessible to the flight attendants. Even if the hijackers aimed their first actions at the flight deck, it takes time to break down the door. In any case, with the onset of any hijacking emergency it is standard operating procedure for one of the flight crew to key the mike and make a call to ATC. Pilots are also trained to switch the aircraft radar transponder to code 7500 or 7700 indicating (silently) a hijacking or an emergency in progress. In addition, any time the aircraft deviates from its designated route of flight it must contact ATC or ATC will give them a call--all of which is tape recorded.

I find it impossible to believe that ATC did not have tape recordings of these emergency calls alerting them to a hijacking. Even during something catastrophic such as an explosion in the air, most pilots still have time to make an emergency call. A hijacking allows more time to react, especially when the only weapons in use are knives. The FAA would have turned these recordings over to the NTSB or FBI, but no federal agency has made mention of their contents even days after the events, and the FBI spokesman in NY specifically told at least one reporter that he had no knowledge of FAA reports. But even that same FBI official made statements at another session about pilot communication and routes changes that could only have been known through FAA provided tape recordings--so we can assume they exist. Strangely, none of the news media asked the FAA if such recordings exist, even though it is common knowledge that ATC communicates with aircraft. Why? The media continues to talk about waiting till the onboard voice and data recorders are found to find out what happened--as if that is the only available source of information. Even after the first voice recorder was located (at the Pentagon crash site), it was announced by one television station that it was blank. This is also strange since these recorders have a 30 minute continuous loop tape that should have some older recorded information on it, even if it failed to record the current flight. Even if the hijackers learned which circuit breakers to pull to disconnect power to the recorder, it would still contain old recorded data.

The FBI has already demonstrated a propensity to alter and hide evidence in politically charged cases. They did so in the OKC investigation, working overtime to make it appear as McVeigh and Nichols acted alone, even though there were numerous Middle Eastern accomplices seen by numerous witnesses. In the TWA 800 crash, the cockpit data recorder was found the first day by special Navy divers, altered, and then put back into the sea for later retrieval. Sounds bizarre, but the FBI and CIA took control of the investigation from the NTSB, corrupted the evidence pointing to a missile attack and concocted a fuel tank explosion scenario so bizarre that it took a $2 million computer generated phony reenactment to make this story half-way believable to a gullible public. While I don't believe the federal government was involved directly in any form of instigation of this particular attack, there are some indications they might want to skew the direction of blame away from the Palestinians.


The FBI claimed on the day of the terrorist attacks that they found a car at Boston's Logan Airport containing written materials in Arabic as well as flight training manuals, which led them to a small pilot training facility in Florida. Jared Israel tracked down the owner of manuals, Huffman Aviation, and quickly determined that his company provided only small aircraft flight training. Rudi Dekker, the owner, did have information, however, about a company in Popana Beach, Florida that could have provided follow-on commercial pilot training with flight simulators. The FBI also claimed that surveillance cameras of the parking structure in the previous weeks showed the same car making multiple trips to the airport, perhaps to scope out the terrain. According to Stratfor.com, they also found a van with pictures of Osama bin Laden and copies of the Koran--an all too convenient link to a sought-after conclusion.

Within 2 days of the tragic events of Tuesday (that supposedly caught every intelligence agency completely by surprise), the FBI claimed they had identified 50 participants, including all 18 hijackers, and have accounted for the whereabouts of 40 out of the 50--leaving only ten unaccounted for. In the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, it took years to find less than half a dozen leads. Something doesn't compute. In order to judge how much of this recent magic is probable or possible one has to know something about the Bureau's investigative capacity. No agency starting from nothing finds this much evidence so fast. It's simply too good to be true. Here is what was legitimate. They did do a cross check of the passenger manifest lists with CIA, FBI, and INS "watch lists" of terrorists. Bingo, lots of matches. They also checked on how payment was made for the tickets of these passengers. Apparently, they were able to trace the purchase of all 5 hijackers on the Boston plane to a single credit card--which yields an obvious accomplice.

But, here's the rub. If federal agencies had most of the hijackers and accomplices already in their database of dangerous suspects, why is it that they were not under surveillance and wiretapping? The FBI tapes thousands of innocent American phone conversations without a warrant according to telephone sources, searches through millions of emails via its Carnivore software, and echelon taps virtually everything going overseas.

Furthermore, if this large, complex and sophisticated operation was so sophisticated as to evade total scrutiny by the CIA, FBI, INS and NSA, why would the perpetrators be stupid enough to leave a car at Logan airport with telltale flight manuals inside? Why not take a taxi? This operation apparently took place over a 5 year period. Considering the expense of training pilots they could certainly have afforded a taxi ride to the airport. Tickets could have been purchased with cash at separate travel agencies. Either someone is planting evidence to send the FBI off after low-level accomplices (to shield others), or the feds are bringing up predictable suspects that will point to Osama bin Laden--the scapegoat. I have no doubt that Osama bin Laden, after dealing with the double-crossing CIA in his early years, is very anti-American, but I'm suspicious about the US rush to judgment on this issue.


One of the main reasons why I do not believe the US government was in any way involved in this terrorist act directly--despite strong past evidence of agent provocateur activities in Waco and Oklahoma City--is that the government at all levels was obviously totally unprepared for what happened. Every agency seemed to over-react and go into panic mode. The Secret Service went berserk in their reaction to the possibility of Pres. and Mrs. Bush being specifically targeted. One agent guarding Mrs. Bush recounted to a relative that while moving Mrs. Bush from the halls of Congress to a secret underground bunker in the sub-basement of a Washington building, loaded guns were pointed a Congressional staff members, warning them to clear the way for the First Lady's entourage--hardly a civil way to treat people on our own side who were trying to leave the Capitol quickly, as they had been instructed. Amid heavy traffic, the caravan reached speeds of nearly 60 mph, and at a grid locked intersection, police cars leading the First Lady's limo bashed other cars out of the way in order make way--all this without any specific evidence of an enemy lurking nearby to justify such rash actions on innocent citizens. The President was flown from Miami to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana and then to the deep nuclear bunkers in Omaha, Nebraska before coming back to Washington. Vice President Cheney was shipped off to bunkers in Camp David to keep him separate from the President (admittedly, a good precaution).


The most draconian measure taken was when the FAA grounded all aircraft in the country and forced the closure of all airports, public and private. I think there was good cause to halt all air commercial air traffic since it was obvious that the entire air security system had broken down, but they went way too far in keeping that lock-down on too long and applying it to small private aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) which don't even require a flight plan. It is patently unfair to penalize private commerce for the failure of the government to provide proper security in the commercial sector.

Look at the reality of US security. The White House and Congress sit under restricted airspace that no one is supposed to fly over, but there exists virtually no military or police means to stop anyone who does. There are usually only a few token National Guard aircraft on alert to patrol our borders--and only to play cat and mouse with Russian bombers who used to routinely violate US airspace. The nation's capitol used to be guarded by Nike missiles long ago, but they were removed in the 50's, leaving the center of government virtually unprotected. Until this week, there were no regular air patrols of armed aircraft ready to be called into action to protect critical infrastructure from attack. Why all the talk about Americans having to give up their liberty to have security when our own military policies, which require no sacrifice of personal liberty, are not allowed to do their job?


Suddenly America has a crisis. It gets caught flat-footed and it over-reacts. Jets are now roaming the skies on 24 hour patrols at great expense and with inadequate numbers of pilots and planes to continue this practice indefinitely. The FAA continues to ban VFR flying by civilian aircraft. Currently, everything that flies has to be under a flight plan, and the ATC system isn't equipped to handle the added load of all the nation's small planes. I fear that this ban on free private flying may become permanent.

Here's the official list of new security restrictions mandated by the FAA:

Discontinued curbside check-in and off-airport checked baggage acceptance (a real inconvenience).

Access beyond security checkpoints limited to passengers with electronic or paper tickets, or with ticket confirmations (no more meeting passengers at the gate).

Increased aircraft and airport security inspections (personal inspection of all bags).

Vehicles near airport terminals monitored closely.

No knives of any size on flights, or anything remotely resembling a sharp pointed object.

Security at the airports is being beefed up to the point that passengers must arrive 2 hours in advance of each flight just to make it through the detailed bag searches being mandated by the FAA. One cannot carry scissors, small pocket knives, needle nose pliers, multi-tools, or perhaps even large fingernail clippers. Billions of man hours are being lost simply because the federal government refuses to consider a simple, rational solution--that is politically incorrect.


In the 50's and 60's airline pilots would sometimes carry a revolver in their flight bag, albeit unknown to the company--kind of a don't ask, don't tell policy. When the first hijackings occurred, all on flights going to Havana, pilots became more open about carrying weapons for protection. The airlines, with government prodding, disarmed the pilots as a matter of formal policy. Airlines wouldn't even allow pilots to carry a non-lethal stun gun to subdue a hijacker. The results were predictable when the word got out that airlines are a guaranteed "gun-free" zone. Hijackings skyrocketed. The FAA respondd with metal detectors, which are OK, but they're not foolproof, as we now know. They never have been foolproof. People can still hijack planes with even the threat of a bomb in their carry-on bag, because of airline policies directing flight crews to simply submit to hijackers. Now, its a different ball game. To submit to a hijacker is to die. The only solution is to give crews the means to fight back.

I'm a pilot and I know the risks of firing a weapon in a pressurized airplane. While not as catastrophic as depicted in the movies, it does put a small hole in a pressurized skin. Too many holes and the aircraft would have to descend. There are special weapons and rounds that have been developed, however, that won't penetrate an aircraft, but that will disable a human with blunt force. Yes, there is some risk to passengers in any fight, but now the stakes are high. With hijackers resorting to weak weapons like non-metallic knives, even a canister of pepper spray would be effective. Most pilots would be very competent with pepper spray or a gun, especially with some additional training. Many have former military experience. I'm not suggesting arming flight attendants, however, since they mingle closely with passengers; there is too much danger of having their concealed weapon taken from them forcefully. But with armed pilots and flight engineers behind a solid flight deck door, no plane could be commandeered as happened this week.

Hiring armed Air Marshals is also a possibility but not as good an alternative as an armed flight crew. There are thousands of flights per day that have to be protected and the cost to the airlines would be high. Most likely the airlines would economize by using Air Marshalls only on occasional flights as a partial deterrence. On the other hand, pilots could fill the role with no additional expense and are, I believe, capable of receiving training and acting as the ultimate guardians of the aircraft. Indeed, after this week's experience, they are probably anxious to do so for their own safety. Above all, the deterrent affect of knowing that every aircraft has an armed crew would be dramatic. Best of all, most of these new and costly air travel restrictions could be removed once again. If you agree, let the FAA hear from you.

Table of Contents

2002-2006:  The West's Growing Window of Vulnerability

by Joel M. Skousen,

Editor World Affairs Brief


For the last thirty years the West--and the US in particular--has engaged in de facto unilateral disarmament vis-à-vis the twin Communist threats of Russia and China.  Ostensibly, the original official policy was conditioned upon a series of multilateral and verifiable disarmament agreements with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states--but these agreements have, in fact, been neither.  Instead, the West has acted unilaterally to disarm while China and the Soviet Union (and its successor, the Commonwealth of Independent States) have either refused to signs such agreements or have violated them repeatedly.

In response to these violations, the US has engaged in a policy of denial that Russia and China are strategic threats, choosing instead to focus on the much smaller threats from minor rogue nations--all of which are client states of the “Big Two” Communist powers.  In addition, both Republican and Democratic administrations in the US have engaged in a systematic covering operation for Russian and Chinese hostile intentions by:

a) minimizing the perception of Chinese and Russian aggression against other nations (Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Tibet, Chechnya),

b) downplaying or hiding from public disclosure Chinese and Russian violations of arms agreements,

c) amending arms treaties or making secret side agreements formalizing the legitimacy of violations,

d) facilitating military technology transfers to both China and Russia as if they were allies or “strategic partners,”

e) encouraging or allowing the Russians to build compensatory modernized missile systems, presumably so they won’t feel insecure about proposed US missile defense systems.


One of the most egregious deceptions perpetrated upon the public today is that Russian military might has collapsed.  Actually, Russia still presents a very real threat, with a military that is continually being updated and strengthened.  However, to perpetrate the theory of their own military weakness, Russia has removed from public view the major portions of ongoing weapons modernization programs and allowed Western arms control inspectors to see only old, outdated weapons systems that Russia needs to replace anyway.  Then, feigning poverty, they have induced the West to pay for the modernization.  Never mind that Russia always seems to have the funds to develop new and expensive high tech weapons for sale to client rogue nations. 

Western inspectors have never been allowed into any of the major underground storage and manufacturing depots scattered around the CIS--only the old ones built early in the Cold War which are hardly serviceable.  Instead of making realistic approximations of Russian military assets based upon a clear pattern of obscuration and cheating, virtually every official US and British source of intelligence lists Russian and CIS military assets today as if they were abiding by arms control treaties.  In other words, the numbers of nuclear warheads and missiles in official records are listed to match what they are supposed to be, according to treaty--not what they really are (which no one knows for certain).

Russia is in the completion stage of two huge underground military-industrial complexes and numerous other interconnected bunker developments throughout Russia (e.g.: the Sherapovo bunker site, south of Moscow).  The  Yamantau Mountain underground complex in the Beloretsk area of the southern Ural mountains is estimated to be the size of the Washington DC metro area, and the Yavinsky Mountain complex is slightly smaller.  Although Russia claims both these sites to be mining projects, the multiple standard sized rail lines entering hardened entrances at each complex suggest otherwise.  Why would Russia refuse to let US inspectors inside if they were only mining operations?   When the New York Times ran a front page article in 1996 on these facilities, the CIA responded by excusing them as “defensive,” even though they admittedly have never been inside. Clearly this is another example of US agencies being directed by higher authority to downplay any evidence that Russia is still a threat.  Private military analysts, myself included, suspect that these huge underground complexes are housing complete nuclear, biological and chemical warfare factories capable of surviving nuclear retaliation and maintaining Russia’s production capacity during a nuclear war.  Russia clearly intends to start and win a nuclear conflict, despite all the wishful thinking by disarmament experts to the contrary.


While Russia feigns poverty and purposefully keeps major sectors of the economy in shambles, huge amounts of Western loans and aid are secretly being funneled into growing weapons programs.   According to Pentagon analyst  Frank C. Spinney,  “Since 1991, Congress has authorized nearly $2 billion to assist Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan with the safe and secure storage, transportation, and dismantlement of nuclear and chemical weapons (The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for Soviet Weapons Dismantlement).  The United States also arranged to purchase 500 metric tons of enriched uranium from dismantled warheads to keep it out of circulation. The warhead materials are to be blended down and made into reactor fuel. The deal, however, has run into difficulties due to haggling over the price the United States would pay for the uranium and due to financial pressures stemming from the privatization of the government corporation charged with implementing the deal, the United States Enrichment Corporation. Critics say the US aid is freeing up money for Moscow to continue its strategic nuclear buildup, which includes two new long-range missile systems and a new class of missile submarines.”  Notice that when it comes to Russian compliance some snag always emerges that keeps them from complying--and yet the money keeps flowing.


Here is a recent assessment of the disarmament boondoggle by J. R. Nyquist, author of Origins of the Fourth World War:  “Recently, it was pointed out by Colin McMahon, of the Chicago Tribune, that the United States is probably paying for the modernization of Russia's nuclear weapons industry.  Meanwhile, our own nuclear-weapons production capability is – according to Senator Fred Thompson – beginning to crumble.  At a secret ‘nuclear city’ in Russia there is a $640 million structure built for housing plutonium from dismantled Russian nukes.  American tax dollars paid for this structure.  According to McMahon, some experts contend the US has been ‘hoodwinked into financing an upgrade of Russia's weapons complex.’ As it turns out, US observers are not allowed to see what is going on at the Russian facility where the $640 million was spent.  This would not be the first instance of America unwittingly financing Russian weapons programs. American dollars sent to Russia have been diverted, and many of these diversions have probably benefited Russian military programs. In recent years, the United States has spent nearly $5 billion in Russia.”

What is particularly disturbing is that the US is responsible for its own arms race.  The US gave the secrets of the atom bomb to Russia during the Lend-Lease period of WWII as documented in the diaries of Major George Jordan, the Lend-Lease officer who objected and was overruled by the FDR White House.  The US also provided the nuclear material for Russia’s first bomb.  In the 1970s, the US facilitated the transfer of sensitive military technology to improve the range and accuracy of Soviet missiles.  Sadly, the American people never realized why we had to build anti-missile systems against these weapons--or how our enemies got them. 

The excuse used at the time for American complicity regarding these transfers was that Russia was too weak to be a threat.  When it became strong due to Western assistance--and very dangerous--we were then told we must appease the Russians because they are a nuclear threat.  Brilliant deduction!  The same rationale is being repeated with China.  Within 10 years or less, China will be a predatory  power that both the West and Russia will come to the same brilliant conclusion after it’s too late. It is no secret among Pentagon experts that both Russia and China still adhere to the military doctrine of using a massive nuclear pre-emptive strike on the West as the opening salvo in the next war.  Russia begins each military exercise with such a simulated nuclear strike, according to reliable Russian military defectors.

Interestingly enough, if the US believes that Russia is no longer a threat, then why does the Pentagon’s Monterey Language School still continue to train more Russian language specialists than any other language by far?   Why, if the US really believes that only rogue nations are a threat did the US install the newest Globus-2 tracking system in Norway--a site suitable only for tracking Russian missiles?  Obviously, while the US government is assuring the world of Russia’s peaceful intentions and specifically excluding a Russian strike from its defensive assumptions, they are planning for something much more ominous. 


Americans are pacified about the US disarmament policy by their own government’s falsification of estimates regarding Russian nuclear and conventional forces.  I’ve already mentioned the fact that Russia’s true numbers of nuclear weapons and warheads is beyond knowing, so US policy makers are told to assume that Russia is in compliance (a fool’s paradise).  Putin, in a recent interview taken a week after his meeting with President Bush, made these candid remarks about the futility of an ABM system: “We will be unable to monitor one another and see how many missiles we have decommissioned . . and when we have unscrewed a warhead, see whether we have placed it nearby or destroyed it...there will be no control. What we unscrew today, we can install tomorrow.”   Absolutely true, and every starry-eyed arms controller knows this but refuses to talk about it, so strong is the ideological tenacity to which they adhere to the cause.

Disarmament of conventional forces has also been downplayed unrealistically.  The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) required that the Soviets would reduce their ground forces west of the Urals (an important loophole) to one-third of their mid-1988 levels by the end of 1994.  Their armored forces would be reduced from 40,400 tanks and 138 reserve motor rifle divisions to 13,000 tanks and 50 divisions.  There were also reciprocal “flank” provisions in which Russia and NATO agreed not to permit concentrations of their own armed forces on their flanks to the north and south.

Before the implementation of the CFE treaty, the Russians were allowed (and encouraged) to withdraw 70,000 pieces of heavy armor and artillery beyond the Ural mountains so they would not be calculated in the CFE provisions.  So, with all the equalizing of numbers supposedly mandated by the CFE, keep in mind that Russia has stockpiled a huge number of modern tanks and mobile artillery in depots east of the Ural mountains which can be brought back into operation quickly during war.  

Even with these loopholes and concessions granted, the Russians have never fully implemented their side of the CFE.  For example, in 1996 Latvia protested the US approval of Moscow’s plan to increase the number of armored personnel carriers in the flank region of Latvia from 400 to 600, when Latvia only had 15 such vehicles.  The Latvian protest went unheeded by the US.  Last year, Poland protested the buildup of tactical nuclear stockpiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast--another violation of the flank agreement.  The Clinton administration refused to pressure Russia to back down and instead entered into a side agreement making the violation acceptable. 

As the Center for Security Policy reported in 1995, “Russia will formally violate the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.  That it would do so comes as no surprise; Moscow has failed fully to draw down the thousands of battle tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery pieces it is obliged to remove from the northern and southern flank regions and has telegraphed its intention not to do so for months. Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev did so again quite pointedly yesterday, announcing that ‘compliance [with the CFE accord] will fully violate our country's system of security both in the south and in the north.’ Evidently, the Kremlin believes it must retain 1,100 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles and 2,100 artillery pieces in its Western region in order to intimidate -- and, if necessary, to fight -- adversaries at home (e.g., the Chechens) and abroad (e.g., the Baltic States, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey).

“The Clinton Administration has responded to this strategically portentous and politically sensitive Russian recalcitrance by essentially capitulating. It has agreed to support an adjustment to the CFE Treaty that would enable Moscow to keep the tanks and artillery pieces it wants along the flanks. Washington has, to date, agreed nearly to double the number of armored vehicles the Russians are allowed to have in the region (i.e., 1,000 armored personnel carriers, etc. versus the 580 it is permitted to have and in contrast to the 3,000 the Kremlin currently seeks).   When the CFE Treaty was signed on November 19 [1994] the Soviets had 20,700 tanks remaining in the Atlantic-to-Urals region. That leaves 7,550 Soviet tanks to be destroyed under the treaty's requirements.”   Still, these numbers do not include the 70,000 pieces Russia has stockpiled east of the Urals.  To date, the Russians have only destroyed a few hundred of the oldest tanks.  Other armored vehicles have been sold to neighboring client states, and thus are still available to enforce Russian foreign policy.

Another chronic disinformation ploy is to claim the Russian air force lacks sufficient fuel to maintain pilot readiness.  A typical quote from the Pentagon proclaims, “The most acute problem in the Russian Air Force is lack of training resources, specifically lack of fuel. Flying hours have been kept to the minimum for years, which erodes besides the pilot skills also the readiness of the whole system.”  This is ludicrous.  Russia is awash in oil resources and doesn’t lack for refineries.  The country is a huge exporter of oil and fuel products.   If Russian officials are limiting the fuel available for flying time, it is because they have chosen to do so, for reasons of promulgating an image of weakness.


As of late 1990 (prior to the CFE) here is a typical view of NATO vs. Soviet conventional forces according to Soviet Military Power.  Note that there was an approximate 2:1 Soviet advantage in quantity of land based weapons:

                                                                NATO:                   WARSAW PACT:

Divisions                                               46                            90

Tanks                                                     23,000                     53,000

Armored Combat Vehicles  30,000                     53,000

Artillery                                                 19,000                     39,000

Combat Aircraft                                    5,500                       8,500

Helicopters                                            1,700                       1,600

Carrier Groups                                      15                            0

Military Ships                                       1,300                       1,500

Armored Divisions                              41                            79

Manpower                                             1.85 million            5.3 million                                                             

Here is a current view of the West vs. East comparison after CFE including Russian Ural stockpiles, normally omitted from conventional assessments for political reasons.   There still is a 2:1 Russian bloc advantage in conventional land-based weaponry.   The two sides are at least comparable in nuclear forces.







11/19 = 30

50/20 = 70


4,000/16,000 = 20,000

43,000/7,000 = 50,000

Armored Combat Vehicles

5,000/24,000 = 29,000

40,000/15,000 = 55,000


2,500/16,000 = 18,500

33,000/15,000 = 45,000

Combat Aircraft   

600/1,000 = 1,600

4,500/1,600 = 5,100


300/1,700 = 2,000

2,300/1,600 = 3,900

Carrier Groups     

6/3 = 9


Military Ships

300/600 = 900






Nuclear Missile Subs



Nuclear Attack Subs



Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

550, MX out in 2002

756 known, and growing

Sub Launched Missiles



Nuclear Bombers



Total Nuclear Warheads    


9,000 est.


2,000 or less

20,000 or more


One cannot simply tally up total forces and come to a predictable outcome based upon quantity.  Quantity does matter, but it is only one of several factors to consider.  Quality of weapons systems are a factor.  Some high tech weapons are worth 10 conventional types.  But quality is overplayed by the Americans.  Smart weapons are ten to twenty times more costly than conventional weapons and thus are deployed in vastly smaller quantities.  None of the Western nations has the unlimited budget to field both quality and massive quantity.  In addition, high tech weapons have never been tested against a determined enemy possessing both quality weapons and overwhelming numbers.  The recent US experiments in clean, surgical stand-off warfare against Iraq and Serbia were not good real-world examples of military prowess.  Neither Iraq nor Serbia had the will or capability to fight back in a meaningful manner.  Yet even so, in both mini-wars, US stockpiles of smart weapons were drawn down to dangerously low levels.  In many cases the stockpiles have not been rebuilt.  Up against a Russian attack, with an adversary capable of throwing tens of thousands of armored weapons into the conflict, the US and NATO simply don’t have enough smart weapons to disable even one-third of the potential threat.

Tactics are another major factor.   The US and NATO have ceded the advantage in tactical NBC weapons to the Russians.  The US developed and then declined to deploy the neutron bomb, capable of killing large numbers of people without destroying cities--a major battlefield advantage if faced with overwhelming numbers of enemy troops.  The US has also decommissioned and is destroying almost all its biological, chemical and tactical nuclear stockpiles. Meanwhile, the Russians have deployed the neutron bomb, are maintaining huge stockpiles of other tactical nuclear weapons, and continue to build (in violation of all treaties) stockpiles of modern chemical and biological weapons. Even though treaties have been signed agreeing to reductions of tactical nuclear weapons, these treaties required the Russians only to warehouse their stockpiles. 

In terms of morale and combat readiness, both East and West have serious shortcomings.  The Russians are purposefully allowing their troop levels to drop while maintaining unusually high levels of NCOs and officers.  Some analysts believe this is indicative of feigning weakness while holding on to the leadership capability to rapidly assimilate new recruits in a war.  In the West, NATO would be hard-pressed to field 4 divisions within a reasonable time. US forces are overplayed and understaffed as well.  Morale is at rock bottom in US units.  The US has been enforcing tenuous and unpopular peacekeeping operations abroad that have little bearing on American security interests and have been unpopular with US troops.   Politicians, knowing the fragility of American tolerance for these foreign entanglements,  have skewed military tactics to avoid (and sometimes cover up) getting Americans killed, leaving the false impression that military operations can be done with little risk of bloodshed--another fool’s paradise.   Meanwhile, political correctness has invaded all aspects of American military training.  Irritating sensitivity training has caused racial sensitivities to heighten rather than lessen.  Preferential treatment for women in the military--forcing the use of double standards in training--also saps the morale out of mixed forces.   Pay and benefits have now become the sole motivators in recruitment efforts, and it isn’t working.  The quality of retention is suffering along with quantity.   When politicians destroy the moral and patriotic basis for military service, good people leave and unprincipled mercenaries fill in the vacuum.



The one factor that can unbalance all others is the nuclear factor.  Nuclear considerations dominate because only nuclear weapons have the potential to change the balance of power so quickly.  Of course, the mere possession of  nuclear weapons does not equate to deterrence if it is apparent that a nation lacks the political will to use them.   Communist leaders do not lack the ruthlessness to do so.   The Russians are so sure of the inevitability of a nuclear war that they have made substantial preparations to survive such a circumstance, including a huge underground hardened military support system and civilian shelter system. 

In contrast,  US and NATO allies are particularly unprotected and left vulnerable to nuclear attack.  In addition, the US has engaged in several unwise policies that actually encourage a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike:

1) There are no longer any nuclear bombers on alert that can get airborne in time to escape a nuclear first strike.

2) Driven by naive notions of Russian disarmament and an inordinate fear of accidental launch, the US military today lives under the ominous and suicidal restrictions of a top secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) mandating that the US military absorb a nuclear first strike and not launch on warning.  This has not been rescinded by President Bush.

3)  The US has agreed to keep half of its ballistic missile submarine fleet (SSBN) in port at any time, ensuring the Russians’ ability to eliminate half our capacity in a single blow.  These two ports at Bangor (Seattle), Washington and King’s Bay, Georgia are guaranteed first strike targets.  Similarly the nation’s B-1 bomber force is being consolidated into 2 bases instead of the current 5.  

4)  There exist no nuclear fallout shelters in the US intended to protect the general population.  The government has built numerous large scale underground shelters to protect military and high ranking civilians from attack--which is telling.

The Russians know all of this, and wonder privately how or if the US could be so naive, especially regarding PDD-60.   This order to absorb a nuclear first strike is like telling the Russians, “Look, you’re going to have a free shot, so you’d better give us all you have on the first try, before we retaliate.”   Retaliate with what?  If an enemy knew they could strike without the fear of launch on warning--a powerful deterrent--they would make sure to hit the US with everything necessary to ensure that any retaliation would be limited.  Russian forces can easily handle a limited retaliation, given their level of sheltering.  Launch on warning is a powerful deterrent specifically because of the time delay it takes missiles to arrive on target.  The US could launch its own silo-based missiles before the Russian missiles arrive on target.  With a knowledge of which Russian facilities had already launched weapons, US missiles could be retargeted to attack those Russian missiles or facilities that are still vulnerable.  When the Russian missiles finally arrived, many of their targets would be empty.  Thus, launch on warning actually gives an advantage to the side that launches second--not first.

Without a policy to launch on warning, two and a half legs of the US strategic triad (nuclear missiles, bombers, half of SSBNs) would be taken out all at once in a first strike.  The remaining SSBNs could easily be neutralized and cut off from command by a Russian EMP strike (multiple high altitude nuclear explosions producing electromagnetic pulses that destroy electrical connections below) combined with anti-satellite attacks.  EMP could destroy ELF low frequency communications and satellite systems used to direct submarine operations.  Without communications and authorization to launch missiles, our SSBNs would become isolated and ineffective.

The US has a massive superiority in aircraft carrier task forces.  But with today’s high tech satellite surveillance systems, it is nearly impossible to hide these forces even on the open seas in bad weather.  One nuclear salvo could take out these forces in minutes.   The US navy currently has no effective ABM system to counter a nuclear strike on its carriers.  The Aegis system could potentially be modified to that purpose, but changes to the speed and range of the Aegis missiles would be substantial and costly.


The US strategy has left the nation blatantly vulnerable to a Russian pre-emptive strike during the 2002 to 2006 time frame--what is fast becoming a large window of vulnerability. 

The US is accelerating its unilateral disarmament by decommissioning the powerful MX ICBM in 2002. The MX is a crucial factor in the balance of nuclear deterrence for several reasons.

1) It is our only missile armed with 10 MIRVed warheads, each capable of hitting and destroying hardened Russian and Chinese targets. 

2) It is our most modern and accurate missile.

3) Even though only 50 MX missiles exists, with 10 warheads on each missile that’s a loss of 500 potential targets--a huge loss in deterrence capability. 

4) With PDD-60 still governing our military’s nuclear response, the loss of all 50 MX missiles frees up at least 250 Russian warheads to target other US facilities.  This is because the Russians would have to blanket a hardened MX silo with at least 5 ground burst weapons in order to ensure a kill. 

This unilateral move comes at a time when Russia is not only NOT disarming but is building and deploying 3 new SS-27 (Topol-M) ICBMs per quarter--and there could be more in production in underground factories.  Putin is openly threatening to place 3 warheads on this new 6th generation ICBM (rumored to possess ABM jamming capabilities and maneuvering warheads), even though the START II treaty only allows Russia one warhead per missile.  In fact, Putin’s threat is disinformation for the media.  Both he and US intelligence know that Russia has already begun mounting multiple warheads on the Topols as of last year.   An SS-27 missile test with multiple warhead separation has even been recorded by space based sensors. 

What is also little known is that President Clinton already offered Russia the 3-warhead option as part of his deal to gain Russia’s permission to build an ABM system--as if we needed Russia’s permission to defend ourselves.  What was particularly egregious was Clinton’s reasoning.  He said his offer was to assure Russia that they would have sufficient nuclear power to overwhelm the puny 100 missile interceptor system being planned at the time.  Here is an American president supposedly building an Anti-Ballistic Missile system to protect the American people and then offering to make an agreement with our largest potential nuclear enemy to render the system ineffective!  Thus, it was entirely predictable that Putin’s defense minister would openly deride the US ABM system by saying exactly that--that by mounting 3 warheads on Russia’s planned 500 SS-27s, Russia could overwhelm the US defense system. 

 As if that weren’t enough, Russian defense ministry spokesmen announced, after a test launch of an SS-19 ICBM this week, that Russia may not dismantle the SS-19s after all, in spite of prior promises to do so.   This is not surprising since Russia is and has been in violation of virtually every single disarmament agreement signed.  Strangely, the US not only never protests these violations, but insists on abiding by the agreements itself unilaterally.

As I have said before in prior World Affairs Briefs, our leaders aren’t simply stupid, naive, or even suicidal.  These tactics of covering for Russian violations and war preparations indicate that US globalist leaders have some sort of ulterior motives not in accord with US sovereign interests.  These motives are instead tied, in my opinion, to global intentions of undermining US sovereignty and military might.  What better way to do that than create the conditions of US vulnerability whereby Russia is induced to finally destroy the one obstacle in Communism’s long dream of world hegemony--the US military? 


As Russia and China build for a two-ocean war of supremacy against the US, Sec. of Defense Rumsfield recently announced to Congress that as a matter of US military policy and strategy, the US will no longer prepare to wage two major wars simultaneously.   This is a tacit admission that the Bush campaign pledge to rebuild the American military does not involve a strategy for preparing against the greatest known threats--Russia and China--which would require preparing for the inevitable larger war to come. 

Rumsfield’s stated intention of allocating almost the entire $8 billion in defense budget increases towards pay and amenities for service men is indicative that the Bush administration’s increased spending will not be sufficient or timely enough to protect the US during this hastening window of vulnerability.  Thus, currently deployed weapons systems will not be maintained or increased in quantity due to the high cost of fielding the next generation of high tech weapons beginning in 2006-2010.  Ammunition and cruise missile stocks have yet to be replenished from the Serbia campaign.  


With the continued downsizing of conventional forces and disarmament of strategic nuclear forces, the US has knowingly or unknowingly left itself dangerously exposed to Russia’s nuclear option from 2002 to 2006.   Considering the quantities of conventional forces held in reserve by both Russia and China, the West would be hard–pressed even under existing favorable circumstances to field a sufficient quantity of smart munitions to fight a full scale, two ocean war during that period.  If such a war were preceded by a nuclear pre-emptive strike against the West, the resulting diminution of Western military power would be almost fatal.  I suspect strongly that the Russians intend to use the nuclear option on the US and Britain, and then attempt to blackmail Europe into submission.  If Europe fails to succumb, Russia will procede with an attack on Europe with tactical nuclear weapons and a massive quantity of conventional forces once Europe’s compliment of the high tech weapons are eliminated or used up.  China, currently in a mutually supportive role with Russia, will use their advantage (in quantity of armed forces) to occupy vast territories, while Russia supplements China’s limited naval transport capabilities. 


the US is making a huge strategic mistake by downsizing and disarming strategic forces before new weapons systems are deployed to shore up the deterrence factor.  It’s a mistake to disarm in any case, given the massive amount of Russian and Chinese violations of arm control agreements.   Even relying on small numbers of high tech equipment, without sufficient ammunition stocks to field a much larger threat, is very unwise, but disarming in the face of Russia’s increased motivation to use the nuclear option is suicidal.  Sadly, it appears as if the United State’s illusory days as the world’s only super power are numbered.   

The window of US/NATO vulnerability will begin to open in 2002 after the MX missiles are destroyed.  The intention of the US to leap forward in time and field a whole new generation of high tech weaponry after 2006, coupled with the threat of a vigorous multi-tiered ABM system before 2007, almost guarantees that the Russians will see the necessity to strike before that time frame.  No single issue incites Russian or Chinese fears more than the specter of an ABM system that will potentially limit their planned first strike strategy.  Their opposition to this purely defensive system is clear evidence of eventual hostile intentions--all other excuses about its potential for creating an arms race are pure propaganda.  Russia is already in an arms race, building a new force of ICBMs, and the West is helping out with a steady flow of loans and joint venture military technology.  

The picture I paint is grim and holds little hope at this late stage for reversal. As Serbian-American Petar Makara said recently, “false hope will keep the victim immobilized when action is the only real hope left.”   To a world accustomed to living in illusions of peace and hope, this projected Russian nuclear strike is unthinkable, therefore the public will continue to prefer paralysis to action. 

Furthermore, the West naively thinks that everyone is rational like themselves and that no modern nation would knowingly plan to destroy our marvelous way of life, since it would affect the perpetrator himself.  Sadly, these illusions of hope are reminiscent of the 1930s.  Most fail to remember that real evil rises up from time to time as men’s consciences grow dull and they become resistant to the warning signs--and even anxious to disbelieve.  It’s only been a little more than a half a century since the world succumbed to the same illusions of peace and prosperity that led to WWII.  It is my warning to the world that we are entering a similar but even more deceptive period which will sweep us into WWIII, to be followed by a total restructuring of the New World Order--which will destroy in one final motion what remains of national sovereignty and individual liberty. 

Naturally, the resulting form of government will still be called democracy and the “rule of law”--but the law will have become a vehicle of oppression and there will be no retreat allowed back to individual, family, or national sovereignty.  The EU, NAFTA, and the WTO are administrative precursors to this control system, which should be actively resisted.  But the real chains of international police power are only capable of being forged when people are suffering under the exigencies of war and cease to worry about rights and limited government in their quest for survival.  That’s why, as Helmut Kohl cryptically hinted at his speech in Leuven, Belgium in 1996, “The only alternative to European integration is war.”  As an insider, Kohl knows that war--what the world considers unthinkable--may soon become a tragic reality.

back to world affairs homepage          home