Who's Online

We have 341 guests online

Popular

2847 readings
THE REEMERGENCE OF THE COLD WAR PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Monday, 15 May 2006 10:16
THE REEMERGENCE OF THE COLD WAR

F.H. Knelman, Ph.D.

The Cold War never ended. It merely went underground. But when Cheney recently criticized Russia about its failure to support democratic reform, Putin replied that the Cold War could be back. But the reality of the matter is that the U.S. has never abandoned its plans to fight and win a nuclear war, first with the Soviet Union, beginning with the Reagan administration, and with every president up to the present Bush regime.

THE REEMERGENCE OF THE COLD WAR

F.H. Knelman, Ph.D.

The Cold War never ended. It merely went underground. But when Cheney recently criticized Russia about its failure to support democratic reform, Putin replied that the Cold War could be back. But the reality of the matter is that the U.S. has never abandoned its plans to fight and win a nuclear war, first with the Soviet Union, beginning with the Reagan administration, and with every president up to the present Bush regime. The latter uses the phrase that they ?will not tolerate a ?reemergent? power?, i.e. Russia. This intolerance is being translated into policy and action. The past offers a context to the present but the Bush administration intends to go to the limit, i.e. it has operational plans to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia through a preemptive counterforce first strike, on land, on the oceans, under the oceans and in space.

A series of earlier National Security Decision Documents (NSDD) spelled out the preparation of fighting a nuclear war, first against the Soviet Union, and later Russia. In July, 1980 President Carter?s Presidential Decision Directive 59 qualitatively altered ?the goal, supporting a ?any means necessary? declaration to fight and win such a war. Even earlier, under Reagan, the U.S. had already abandoned deterrence in favour of strategies to fight and win a nuclear war. The estimate of casualties was some 20 million U.S. and 200 million Russians (F.H. Knelman, ?America, God and the Bomb: The Legacy of Ronald Reagan?, (Vancouver: New Star Books, 1981). By February, 1982 the Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) evolved into the assured destruction of the Soviet Union. The culmination of this U.S. policy was REACT (Rapid Execution and Control Targeting), which contains the option of the first use of nuclear weapons.

Under President Bush Sr., i.e. ?The U.S. is now governed by a Pax Americana perspective?, (John Isaacs, ?Just Put it on the Tab?, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October, 1993, p.8). On Jan. 6, 1982 the notorious REED report was leaked to the Washington Post. It insisted that the U.S. be the exclusive top power in the world and nuclearize most military activities and states it will not tolerate other countries ?who ?may decide to be equal to ourselves?. Then, in the New York Times of February 17, 1992 a secret Pentagon analysis, i.e. ??flexible response? becomes the policy to use nuclear weapons in any military action (see current Iran situation). A remarkable article by William Arkin deals with the U.S.?s concept of a ?genuine threat?, i.e. the U.S. military presence, even in Canadian waters, is part of its global nuclear war-fighting strategy, (William Arkin, ?U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces?, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan./Feb., 1995, p.72). An article by Hans Kristensen, using documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, substantiated the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons in conventional conflict and ?to hold at risk the enemies? hardened targets?, (Hans Kristensen, ?Targets of Opportunity?, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Oct./Nov., 1997, pp. 22-28).

It is in the above context of the U.S.?s unilateral declaration of being the world?s exclusive superpower that the concept of ruling out the act of a ?reemergent? power that might challenge it emerged, i.e. Russia, (Ruth Rosen: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ). In order to complete their capacity to fight and win a nuclear war they decided to ?militarize space and have adopted a preemptive counterforce attack plan on Russian missile sites, nuclear submarines and nuclear armed aircraft. Donald Rumsfeld has stated, ?In the coming period the U.S. will conduct military operations to, from, in and through space in support of national interests, both on Earth and in space?, (Karl Grossman, ?Technology and Globalization Teach-In?, Hunter College, New York City, Feb. 24, 2002.

U.S. political and military leaders generally felt that the death of some 20 million Americans in a full-scale nuclear war with the Soviet Union and later with ?the present ?Russia was unacceptable. This reoriented their entire military policy into space. By controlling and weaponizing space, i.e. with both offensive and defensive systems, they thought they could radically reduce American casualties.

In the past Canada has been a willing accomplice of the U.S. in their primary military objective, i.e. Russia. They permitted the U.S. to store nuclear weapons on Canadian territory. They allowed the U.S. to test first strike cruise missiles. Then they agreed to participate in a large-scale ballistic missile defence (BMD) program. This was designed to destroy Russia?s incoming ballistic missiles, to be shot ?down over Canadian territory, threatening the lives of millions of Canadians from deadly radioactive fall-out.

There is absolutely no doubt that Canada is making a significant contribution to the U.S.?s weaponization of space. Canada?s RADARSAT-2 satellite is designated to play a key role in providing data for the U.S. in the identification and destruction of incoming missiles. Controlling the high ground has been a consistent theory of war for centuries. The U.S. military leadership has emphasized this in multiple statements, i.e. ?Space is the fourth dimension of warfare - air and space power is the force of the future?, (General Ronald R. Fogelman), and ??We?re going to fight a war in space. We?re going to fight from space? and ?we?re going to fight to space. We will engage terrestrial targets some day - ships, airplanes, land targets - from space. We will engage targets in space, from space.? For the full text of these ambitions translated into real capacity, see ??Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond, U.S. Space Command?). An excellent source of this issue can be found in Press for Conversion: Coalition to Oppose the Arms Race, Issue #58, March, 2006). ?

As for RADARSAT, Canada?s contribution to space war, it was NASA ?who launched RADARSAT-1, which is partially controlled by the U.S. and its images have already been used in U.S.-led wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. RADARSAT-2 is being used by the U.S. to practice first strike attacks during their Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) war games, while RADARSAT-3 will be the most advanced and sophisticated space-borne land information instrument ever developed. In the use of RADARSAT Canada is already a partner of the U.S. in its illegal war in Iraq. This was included in a so-called ?secret annex? in Canada?s 2000 bilateral Bill C-25 treaty with the U.S. Actually, Canada has been working with the U.S. military since 1999 on the role of the future RADARSAT-2, (Press for Conversion, Issue #58, p.15). On page 50 of this document fourteen Canadian contributions ?to the Iraq war are listed. Yet there is nothing really new about Canada?s accommodation of the U.S.?s operational nuclear war plans, as we pointed out earlier. In fact, Canadian participation in any ballistic missile defence violates the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, October, 1967, which explicitly prohibited ?any weapons of mass destruction in outer space? and claimed, ?outer space is the province of all mankind?, (not a province of Canada).

Now the ?square? in the Oval Office, the ?decider? of the world?s fate, the blustering bully of the world, has launched yet another move in the reemerging Cold War. Its name is very revealing, i.e. ?Exercise Trident Fury?. ?It involves the U.S., Canada and members of NATO, with all three military branches participating. This exercise is a deliberate taunting of Russia. It also involves a gross deception, i.e. the real instigator is the U.S., while it is being promoted as though it is a Canadian initiative, that in itself being a cause of great concern. It took ?place between May 8 and May 14th, ?on the land, in the air and in the waters of western British Columbia and was the largest of its kind. ?We believe this exercise by the Harper government indicates a stronger commitment to the U.S. goal of dominion over the world and a provocative step in the reemergent Cold War. If Harper had held power four years earlier, Canada would be in Iraq. At the same time, our allegation that we are in the process of a reemergent Cold War is the news that Russia has a new and very advanced mobile space vehicle with significant kill capacity against satellites and even weapons in space. If this is true, it would hardly be surprizing. It is time for the Canadian people to realize the full significance of the resumption of the return of a full-scale Cold War and the global threat it poses. We must rise up and denounce this U.S.-driven disaster and confine ourselves to serving world peace. Finally, we must ask the question of whether Canada is cooperating in the mass wire-tapping in the U.S. It does not seem likely, but it is not impossible.

In conclusion, following Russian President Gorbachev?s formal abandonment of the Cold War, it is our thesis that it never died but simply went underground, primarily by the U.S. But the competition of nuclear arms retained its dynamics. For each side an increment of offence elicited an increment of defence, and this dynamic has continued to this day. However, it is the U.S. that is the driving force in its defence of world supremacy. Meetings with handshakes between George W., Bush and Putin are grotesque charades.

Under George W. Bush, this process of achieving dominance over the entire world and making certain no country can challenge this dominance has intensified beyond anything in previous administrations. Later in this century China may become a new challenge.
Last Updated on Monday, 15 May 2006 10:16
 

Latest News