-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- 3/2/00 >From --J2 > Eternera Mailing List - http://get.to/eternera > > THE TIMES (London) > March 1 2000 > > OPINION > > William S Cohen > > 'Rogue states cannot hope to blackmail > America or her allies' > > Militaries often face the complaint that they are preparing for the > last battle rather than adapting to emerging threats. But today we > face new dangers that require new approaches. That is why the > United States is developing a limited national missile defence > system designed to improve security and stability. > > The proposed system is not aimed at Russia. The Cold War is > over. Today American and Russian soldiers serve as > peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the two countries are > working together to reduce further our arsenals. Now the United > States worries about programmes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and > other rogue countries that seek to build or buy nuclear, chemical > and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. > > North Korea is building and selling ballistic missiles, it has > assembled an arsenal of chemical, biological weapons and it tried > to develop nuclear capabilities. It has developed the Taepo Dong > 2 missile, which could reach American territory, and it could test it > at any time. > > Iran is buying and developing ballistic missiles. It has flight- > tested an intermediate range Shahab-3 missile and within the > decade it could test a missile capable of reaching all of Europe's > major cities. Iran has chemical weapons and is seeking nuclear > and biological strength. > > Before the Gulf War, Iraq had loaded chemical and biological > weapons into missile warheads, according to United Nations arms > inspectors, and it was close to achieving a nuclear capability. UN > sanctions have slowed, but probably not stopped, Baghdad's > determination to produce weapons of mass destruction. > > Traditional deterrence rests on our ability to launch a devastating > counter-strike against any country that uses weapons of mass > destruction against America, its allies or deployed forces. Such > measures worked against the Soviet Union, whose leaders were > rational and risk-averse, but they may not deter rogue states > whose leaders are indifferent to their people's welfare. Iraq, Iran > and North Korea do not need long-range missiles to intimidate > their neighbours; they want long-range missiles to coerce and > threaten more distant countries in North America and Europe. > > The United States has adopted a multi-faceted approach to > counter this threat so that rogue state leaders cannot hope to > blackmail America from protecting its interests, including > commitments to its allies. Our first line of defence is to maintain a > robust conventional and nuclear deterrent. ******************** The US is also > pursuing an aggressive approach to non-proliferation and arms > control. And we are developing a limited missile defence system > that would provide protection for all 50 states against small > attacks of perhaps two dozen warheads, once the full system > became operational.********************************************* > > President Clinton faces a deployment decision later this year. > Before making that decision, he will assess the threat, > technological feasibility, affordability, and overall strategic > environment, including arms control objectives. He will weigh the > views of our allies, as well as Russia's willingness to modify the > 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But it should be clear that the > limited defence contemplated by the US is not directed at Russian > forces and would not change the strategic balance between > America and Russia. Three facets of our plan show this: > > First, our proposed system would be too small to defeat Russia's > nuclear force or undermine its strategic deterrent. Russia has > about 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons today; even under > Russia's proposal for future strategic reductions, they would > have 1,500, more than enough to overwhelm the small system > America is developing. Such a limited system would give > Moscow no reason to increase its nuclear forces or to balk at > additional cuts under Start. > > Secondly, we have made clear to Russia that we want to work > co-operatively on adapting the missile treaty. This should answer > Russia's concern that we could expand missile defences sharply > in the future. The treaty allows limited defences and amendments > to fit new strategic realities, if both parties agree. We have > proposed adapting the treaty to let us deploy our limited system > within an arms control framework agreed by Moscow and > Washington. Far from undermining the missile treaty, our > proposal would preserve it as a cornerstone of strategic stability. > > Thirdly, we have told Russia that we want to work with them on > projects that will benefit both countries' security. We believe the > proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, Iraq > and Iran poses as much of a threat to Russia as it does to us. The > US and Russia have agreed to share early warning data on missile > launches. We have proposed joint research on next generation > satellites to detect missile launches and to help Russia to pay for > a large early warning radar in Siberia. > > America is also working to maintain stability by trying to prevent > the spread of missile technology and weapons of mass > destruction. It is in the interest of Russia and China to co-operate > with us in this effort, rather than to transfer dangerous missile > technology *******and oppose a limited national missile defence system.********** > ******************************************************************** > In the face of these new threats, our limited missile defence > system would enhance deterrence and improve stability. An > America that is confident of its own defence will be best > positioned to defend its allies. A co-operative approach on > national missile defence and the ABM Treaty will provide lasting > benefits for global security. > > The author is the US Secretary of Defence ************************************************************************ That was the first hint. Here comes the second. Joshua2 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: http://www.insightmag.com/cgi-bin/ViewNews.cfm?Item=34 NEWS ALERT Weinberger Says U.S. May Have to Go to War With China 2/29/00 - By Scott Stanley Jr. Taking note of yesterday’s announcement by Liberation Army Daily, the official newspaper of Red China’s armed forces, former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger told a meeting on Capitol Hill Tuesday that, “It might not be wise for America to go to war with China, but it might be necessary.” The threat by the People’s Liberation Army to engage in long-range missile attacks on the U.S. mainland needs an “unequivocal, immediate, unambiguous, firm response,” Weinberger said. The former defense secretary also cited an 11,000-word white paper released by Beijing as a high-level negotiating team led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Strobe Talbott left China to return to the United States. Weinberger noted that although Clinton’s ambassador to China, Joseph Prueher, claimed the document contained only a sentence or two that was threatening, it was in fact so warlike as to contain “no nuances,” Weinbeger said, adding: “Clinton should have picked a stronger U.S. ambassador. ***************************** Weinberger also noted China’s forward deployment of missiles directed at Taiwan even as a carrier task force led by the USS Kittyhawk and two U.S. missile cruisers maneuvered off Japan. Thanks to U.S. technology sold to and stolen by the Red Chinese, Beijing is thought by defense experts to have at least 24 long-range missiles capable of hitting most of the United States with warheads the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT. Weinberger told the hushed audience at the Monday Club, hosted by former Indianapolis News editor M. Stanton Evans, that this would be a very good time to have a missile-defense shield in place as proposed under President Reagan. Because of the Clinton administration, Weinberger said, “I don’t think we are militarily ready for conflict with China.” *********************************** <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
