At 15:58 15/12/98 -0500, Frank D.wrote: >This is a much belated response to Ajit sinha's posting Pen-L 1474. I guess >I got carried away with my response > >In Pen-L 1454 I wrote: > >>"With the US led inspection team's surprise visit yesterday to Baath Party >>headquarters in downtown Baghdad to search for weapons of "mass >>destruction", it is clear that the US and Britain are seeking a pretext >for >unleashing the bombers. >>And once the bombers are unleashed, as Valis and Michael have pointed out, >>the hawkish congress will not impeach our morally upright Commander in >>Chief struggling so heroically to defend the nation from enormously evil >>forces. > >Following are some rather startling numbers taken from CIA World Fact >Book >of 1997, and the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997 >> >>US GDP (1996) $7,576.1 billion >>US Defense Spending (1996) $267.0 billion >> >>US Consumer spending on Alcoholic Beverages (1994) $85.5 Billion >> >>US Consumer spending on Tobacco Products (1994) $47.7 billion >> >> >>***********IRAQ GDP (1996) $42 billion.*************** >> >> >>The Philadelphia Inquirer of Nov 18, 1998 reported that the Gulf War cost >>$61 billion and "…by private budget analysts' estimates, roughly $50 >>billion of the annual $270 billion in U.S. military spending goes toward >>maintaining the Persian Gulf deployment and keeping the Iraqi president in >>line." >In Pen L-1474 Ajit wrote: > > >But don't you think that Sadam has remained in power because of the US >>policy. When in history a dictator or even a "leader" has lost a war in >such a >complete fashion and has remained in power? I think Sadam has >remained in >power because the sanctions for the Iraqi means that the war >is not over. >Sadam is still fighting a war, and that's why he will not be >removed by either >the people or the elites. Remove the sanction, and i >tell you Sadam will fall >soon. People will say, now we have to build our >country, we need new politics, >new leadership. Cheers, ajit sinha Ajit >sinha: > ***************************** >Ajit, You may be correct, I just don't know. I would however, like to >elaborate on a few additional points. First, I think we all err in calling >it a war. It was not a "war" and to call it such ennobles it with an aura >of high morality and valor. It was gargantuan turkey shoot in which the >Pentagon tested out its newest toys: that the media glorified; over which >members congress struggled to outdo each other in displaying patriotism; >and that the American public heartily applauded as it watched the "smart >bombs" rain down on thousands of Iraqi civilians and virtually defenseless >young draftees. >. >I am at a loss to understand the attention given to Sadam. He poses >absolutly no threat to world security. The Israelis bombed his only nuclear >facility back in 1981. In the turkey shoot of Jan and Feb 1991, according >to the Pentagon, 80% of Iraq's military capability was demolished together >with virtually the entire industrial infrastructure. And since the turkey >shoot, UN inspection teams have fine combed every square inch of Iraqi land >and real-estate even (according to the Iraqi ambassador to the UN} entering >office buildings and stores and searching women's pocket books, The >inspection team claims to have destroyed 90% of the remaining Iraqi missile >capacity (antique Scuds no doubt) and many times more chemical and >biological weapons than were destroyed in the turkey shoot. _____________ I agree with what you say, but I am thinking more from the point of view of an Iraqi citizen than an US citizen. Let's suppose I'm an average Iraqi who has bought into the "sadam, our great leader" slogan. This great leader of mine takes my country to war with the US and the Western world to show the world the mother of all wars. And then does not even fight it. Gets about quater of a million soldiers directly killed, the country bombed to stone age for nothing. What an idiot this leader turns out to be! Now, I don't know whether the US policy is purposely designed to keep Sadam in power or not. Him being in power is definitely serving a purpose. It gives them an excuse to have their military presence in the region, and keep a check on the Russians. My general sense is that the policy is not purposive. Even though the US thinks of itself as "rational" and conducts its business in the interest of its "national interest", it has a strong "irrational" trait of machoism and ego. They have to show to the world that it is them who have finally forced Sadam out of power. The bully boys have to reinforce their ego. I do agree with what you say about Russia below. It is a time-bomb, and probably worse than Hitler's Germany in making. Cheers, ajit sinha > >The only threat Sadam poses is the fact he diverts our attention from many >real threats hanging over us like a sword of Damocles , such as: a) an >accidental launch of a Russian missile precipitating the mutual exchange of >several thousand Russian and US nuclear warheads and a global holocaust, b) >a deliberate launch of nuclear missiles by a hungry and disgruntled >Russian. c) The leakage of atomic materials and devices out of Russia into >the hands of terrorists. National Security experts are in agreement that >the question is no longer whether one or more of the above first three will >happen, but rather when will it happen. > >The Russian economy has imploded, and with it the budgetary revenues to >carry out necessary maintenance and replacement of equipment in either its >military or civilian nuclear complexes. The defense complex, containing >more than half of the worlds nuclear war heads, is composed of a rapidly >deteriorating missile warning component, rusting launch systems, tied >together by obsolete computer networks, all manned by increasingly >impoverished and disgruntled soldiers. And on top of it all, with his >fingers on the launch button, sits the highly erratic Czar Boris, a chronic >alcoholic with the DTs and alhizermers. > >Two years ago, the Russian parliament passed a resolution lamenting "the >critical situation pertaining to financing work on nuclear weapons .The >legislators lamented the fact that the servicing of nuclear weapons had >virtually ceased. >In October of 1996 a top secret CIA report leaked to the Washington Times >stated that "the Russian nuclear command and control system is being >subjected to stress that it was not designed to withstand as a result of >wrenching social change, economic hardship and malaise within the armed >forces" > >Last year then Russian Minister of defense Rodionov told reporters that >much of the equipment in the complex had already served two or three times >longer than had been planned. He lamented the fact that the command systems >had not been revamped for five years and that they exist only because their >operational life had been artificially extended. The result, he said, was >that the complex was in such a "horrifying and outdated state…that no one >today can guarantee the reliability of our control systems." In Rodionov's >words, it is the number one problem, "Not only for us, but or the world" >(Reuters Report of May 29, 1997) >And just a couple of weeks ago, Chief of Staff Gen. Anatoly Perminov said >that 58 percent of Russia's long-range ballistic missiles were past their >sell-by date, while more than 70 percent of rockets used to launch >observation satellites and 90 percent of their complex ground control >systems were past their expiry date. > >The Russians are highly nervous and the recent NATO expansion has only >heightened that nervousness. With their conventional forces in shambles >their only means of defense is their nuclear arm. They are nervous because >when the Soviet Union disintegrated, so did it's early warning system. Long >range radar missile tracking stations in Ukraine; the Baltics and >Byelorussia were destroyed, leaving Russia's missile defenses semi-blind. >Thus the Russian missile forces are always in a state of hair trigger high >alert, and this impaired warning system could trigger a mistaken decision >to launch a retaliatory strike. > There have been many close calls. The best know is that of Jan 25, 1995 >the world came perilously close to an accidental Russian launch with its >inevitable US response when Russian radar mistook a Norwegian scientific >research rocket for a U.S. trident, and this notwithstanding the fact that >the Norwegians had notified the Russia of their plans. In May of 1996 the >Washington Times reported on CIA report indicating that recent malfunctions >of equipment controlling Moscow's nuclear arsenal had spontaneously >switched missiles to "combat mode" on several occasions. > > As reported by the Jamestown Foundation Monitor, in Oct of 1994 the >Central command Post of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces had its >electricity cut off because the defense Ministry had not paid its electric >bills for a long period of time. The same problem occurred several months >later in several Military districts. During these incidents there was a >real danger that the missiles would be launched spontaneously against any >of the targets programmed into their computers. > >An increasingly highly probable event is a desperation launch a la Dr >Stragelove, i.e. a launch by a disgruntled launch officer or mutineer. The >Russian military establishment is an incredibly parlous state. Soldiers >and officers, as is the case with 80% of the people employed in Russia, go >for months without being paid. They and their families are going hungry in >a literal sense of the word. There have been many press reports of soldiers >roaming the streets begging for food, of officers driving taxis, working as >dishwasher's etc just to somehow scrape by. There also have been many >reports of military personnel dying from hunger. Suicide is a common event >and the most frequent cause is the inability to feed families. The Ministry >of Defense's chief psychiatrist said that only 10% of the military who took >their own lives were mentally ill. The other 99% have been described as >"absolutly normal people driven into a corner by despair." A typical >suicide note is that of Senior Lieutenant Sergey Babchenko who in his >suicide note wrote about the hopelessness of his situation and the >impossibility of feeding his wife and three-year-old daughter. The Suicide >rate among the members of the Strategic Nuclear Forces his the highest of >all the arms. > >Press reports of soldiers going berserk and embarking on shooting sprees >and shooting their comrades are frequent and becoming more numerous. In >just September of this year, the following incidents were reported; a) five >soldiers at a secret nuclear testing facility killed a colleague, seized >hostages and tried to hijack a plane. b) a sailor in Murmansk killed seven >people aboard a nuclear submarine, locked himself in a torpedo bay and for >20 hours held control of the submarine while repeatedly threatening to >blow it up. c) a sergeant killed two comrades at a complex that handles >spent nuclear fuel. >The CIA report cited above warned of "conspiracies within the nuclear-armed >units to commit blackmail." General Lebed, in an interview in New York in >1996, spoke of his fears of mutiny by land based, submarine or aircraft >nuclear missile crews who live with, or go to sea a or fly in planes >haunted by the fact that their families lack adequate diets and shelter. > >Finally there is high risk of terrorists getting hold of inadequately >secured nuclear materials and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. One >of the best known risks is that of the "suitcase bombs", 1-kiloton bombs >designed for sabotage behind enemy lines, capable of being carried by one >man and easily hidden in an automobile trunk. Retired General Lebed, who >was Yeltsin's top security advisor, claims that Russia has lost track of >100 of these tactical nuclear bombs. In July of 1997 Federal agents >arrested two Lithuanians who were trying to sell them anit-aricraft missals >and tactical nuclear weapons. Alexander and Leslie Cockburn ,by the way, >have written a fascinating book on these missing tactical nukes. > >There have been many reported thefts of nuclear materials. In August of >1994 German police seized as.8 ounces of plutionium-293 on a flight to >Munich from Moscow. In the secret city of Snezhinsk over the past four >years more than 40 thefts of nuclear materials have been registered >(Sevyodnya April 10, 1997). And it seems logical to deduce, that as in the >case of drugs, for ever kilo intercepted there is a multiple which slip >through >In 1996 Then CIA Director John Deutch told a senate committee that security >at Russian nuclear facilities is deteriorating poses a serious threat for >the diversion of fissile materials. He said that while many reports of >nuclear materials being smuggled out of Russia have been bogus, some have >involved small quantities of weapons-grade materials. The Russians he said >"may not know where all their material is located". A special panel of the >National Research Council in April of last year stated that less than 1 >percent of the 1,500 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that can >be used to make atomic bombs is properly protected form terrorist. > >With the dismantling of many of its war heads, Russia has accumulated more >than 60 tons of weapons grade plutonium. As exposure to a microscope >amounts of plutonium has lethal effects, that is more than enough to kill >everyone on the planet several times over. It critical mass is 7 kg and it >takes only 3-4 kg to produce a nuclear warhead. > >In October of last year FBI Director said that the FBI takes 'very >seriously" the possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands >of Russian criminal gangs, and warned of the danger of a nuclear terrorism >Nunn-Lugar Cooperative > > Russia has some 40,000 tons of chemical weapons, untold tons of fissile >materials, and nuclear war heads brought back from neighboring republics, >all laying out there almost in the open, inviting theft and posing , not >an imaginary, but a very real threat. > > But, to come to the point I wanted to make: since 1991 we have we spend >$50 billion a year to contain Sadam and his non-existent weapons of mass >destruction, but an average of about $250 million a year on the only >program which could possibly lessen the dangers discussed above, i.e., the >Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that helps fund Russian >dismantling of its nuclear weapons and securing of their fissionable >materials. > >
