10 September 2010 By Stephen
Lendman On January 3, 2001, the UN
General Assembly's Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
Space Resolution A/55/32 said: "The exploration and use of outer
space....shall be for peaceful purposes and be carried
out for the benefit and in the interest of all
countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or
scientific development. (The) prevention of an arms
race in outer space would avert a grave danger for
international peace and security." Over 140 nations agreed. Only two
declined support, both abstaining - America and
Israel. On August 9, 1996, in Aviation
Week and Space Technology magazine, then
Commander-in-Chief US Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy
asserted: "It's politically sensitive, but
it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear
this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but - absolutely -
we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight
from space and we're going to fight into space. That's
why the US has development programs in directed energy
and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial
targets someday - ships, airplanes, land targets -
from space." On April 18, 2002, the Center for
Defense Information's Theresa Hitchens headlined,
"Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette,"
saying: Weaponizing space "could actually
undermine, rather than enhance, (America's) national
security....There is nothing to be gained, and
potentially much to be lost, by (pursuing) a momentous
change in US space policy." Co-founder and coordinator of the
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in
Space, Bruce Gagnon warned: "If the US is allowed to move the
arms race into space, there will be no return. We have
this one chance, this one moment in history, to stop
the weaponization of space from happening. The peace
movement must move quickly, boldly, and publicly,"
what so far hasn't happened, most people mindless to
the danger. First revealed in the 1998 US
Space Command document, Vision for 2020, it was later
released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020 calling for
"full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and
sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum
and information systems with enough overwhelming power
to wage and win global wars against any adversary,
including with nuclear weapons preemptively,
ultimately from space, America wanting unchallenged
control. The Pentagon's Air Force Space
Command (AFSPC) plans an array of sophisticated
weapons to achieve it, some operational, others being
tested, and new ones under development for its
Operations Plan (OPLAN) 8010-08 Strategic Deterrence
and Global Strike use, the US Strategic Command's (STRATCOM)
Strategic War Plan. Since at least WW II, America's
strategy has been permanent war, a topic discussed
earlier, accessed through the following link: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-permanent-war-agenda.html On June 17, Space.com's Jeremy
Hsu headlined, "Air Force Sees Hypersonic Weapons and
Spaceships in Future," saying: "A recent (Air Force) scramjet
test has hinted at a future where hypersonic
vehicles," traveling five times the speed of sound,
fly around the world and in space, an "experimental
X-51A Waverider," achieving the longest ever Mach 5
flight on May 26, using a rocket booster and
air-breathing scramjet. Charles Brink, head of the Air
Force Research Laboratory's X-51 program envisions
future hypersonic weapons flying "600 nautical miles
in 10 minutes," including in space. NASA's James
Pittman, principal investigator of its hypersonics
project, hopes to have "large vehicles for access to
space using air-breathing propulsion." Earlier X-43A hypersonic scramjet
test flights reached Mach 6.8 in March 2004 and Mach
9.6 in November that year - about 7,000 MPH. The X-51A
project uses a more sophisticated scramjet engine, but
hasn't yet matched or broken the X-43A's record, nor
can it reach orbit, a goal Boeing Phantom
Works/Defense hypersonics director Joseph Vogel hopes
to achieve in the next 15 - 20 years, saying he
expects the technology will be able to fly missions
not possible today, the X-51A showing early promise. In April, after years of
development, the Air Force successfully launched the
X-37B, its robot space shuttle, a reusable spacecraft
traveling like an aircraft at Mach 5 - perhaps another
future space weapon. Global Security.org's John Pike
told Space.com that projects like the X-37B may
"represent the tip of a space weapons program hidden
within the Pentagon's secret 'black budget,' or they
might be nothing more than smoke and mirrors,"
intended to deceive America's rivals, fueling a space
arms race, hoping they'll "waste money chasing down
dead ends." For its part, the Air Force
denies wanting the X-37B for an orbital weapons
delivery system or for surveillance. Others disagree,
journalist Sharon Weinberger saying "the most daring
job of a space plane, and the one least discussed, is
(its) role (as) a bomber, (letting it) fly over
targets within an hour of launch to release
cone-shaped re-entry vehicles that would both protect
and guide weapons through the atmosphere." It would also be able to "carry
1000 or 2000-pound re-entry vehicles armed with
precision munitions like bunker-busting penetrators or
small-diameter bombs (including mini-nukes more
powerful than the atom bombs destroying Hiroshima or
Nagasaki), or simply use the explosive impact of
kinetic rods cratering at hypersonic speeds to destroy
targets." On the other hand, the X37B's
main function may be a test platform, perhaps for
developing even more destructive space weapons, part
of America's permanent war strategy, waging future
ones from space, using technologies adversaries can't
match. OPLAN 8010-08 is a "family of plans" against six or more potential adversaries, including Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other "terrorist" states. In 2002, the Bush administration asserted the right to: "do whatever is necessary to deter the use of (undefined) weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its allies, and its interests. If a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, (or it such use is imminent or threatened), we will not rule out any specific type military response," including first-strike nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Under Obama, the policy remains in force. His May National Security Strategy "reserve(s) he right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests." In other words, to wage preemptive wars, using first-strike nuclear weapons "to keep the American people safe (and advance the nation's) values and ideals," ones pursuing unchallenged global and space hegemony, ruling it by intimidation and war. OPLAN 8010-08 - Updating SIOP Unlike the Cold War's Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), OPLAN 8010-08 contains "more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies." It includes conventional strike options, but it's mostly nuclear, custom designed for each potential adversary. The nuclear options include the Emergency Response Options (ERO), Selective Attack Options (SAO), Basic Attack Options (BAO), and Directed/Adaptive Planning Capability (DPO/APO) options, specific details, of course, highly classified. Options range from limited ones to massive "shock and awe" strikes against many targets, by manned and drone aircraft, ICBMs, and from attack submarines and surface ships, using hundreds of strategically located warheads. The Pentagon's National Target Base includes four categories - military forces, WMD infrastructure, military and national leadership, and war supporting infrastructure - a post Cold War strategy to deter all so-called WMDs, the Bush administration saying America: "has made it clear for many years that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our people, our forces and our friends and allies. Additionally, the United States will hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts." The policy remains unchanged under Obama, OPLAN 8010-08 for preventive or retaliatory "strategic deterrence" and preemptive "global strike." STRATCOM describes the former as its "first line of operation....that includes nuclear force operations." The latter expands national and theater operations globally, the terms Prompt Global Strike and Global Strike used interchangeably, whether with conventional or nuclear weapons, or if prompt or deliberate. The Air Force's nuclear/conventional command is called Global Strike Command, using America's full attack capabilities to destroy targets, including WMDs preemptively, STRATCOM's counterproliferation strategy designed to destroy all WMDs "before they can be used....(a) preemptive....counterforce....or offensively reactive" strategy. While claiming to "put an end to Cold War thinking (by) reduc(ing) the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy," Obama's National Security Strategy puts old wine in new bottles, rebranding it to appear softer while keeping hardline policies in place, backed by a growing arsenal of globally positioned sophisticated weapons, asserting the right to use them preemptively against perceived threats. During the Cold War, MAD (mutually assured destruction) held both sides at bay. Today's strategy includes "more flexible options (for) a wider range of contingencies (with weapons) to optimize performance," meaning destroy an adversary's capabilities preemptively, then target another. With America on a nuclear hair-trigger, it's reinvented MAD in new form, threatening potential global nuclear winter, defined as "a long period of darkness and extreme cold that scientists predict would follow a full-scale nuclear war, a layer of dust and smoke in the atmosphere cover(ing) the earth and block(ing) the rays of the sun, (causing) most living organisms (to) perish." Anti-nuclear expert Helen Caldicott says "one single failure of nuclear deterrence could end human history (quickly). Once initiated, it would take one hour to trigger a swift, sudden end to life on this planet." Only nuclear disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons can stop it. In their joint July 1955 Manifesto, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell put the nuclear threat bluntly: "Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? (The) best authorities are unanimous that a war with H-bombs (or today's arsenal) might possibly put an end to the human race." For some, it will be instant, but "the majority (will experience) a slow torture of disease and disintegration." It's our choice. So far we've made it badly.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Comments 💬 التعليقات |