|
14 April 2010 By Rick Rozoff A war can be won without being waged. Victory can
be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable
to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and
devastating attack without the ability to defend
itself or retaliate. What applies to an individual country does also to
all potential adversaries and indeed to every other
nation in the world. There is only one country that has the military and
scientific capacity and has openly proclaimed its
intention to achieve that ability. That nation is what
its current head of state defined last December as the
world’s sole military superpower. [1] One which
aspires to remain the only state in history to wield
full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air,
on the seas and in space. To maintain and extend military bases and troops,
aircraft carrier battle groups, jet fighters and
strategic bombers on and to most every latitude and
longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record
war budget of $708 billion for next year. Having gained that status in large part through
being the first country to develop and use nuclear
weapons, it is now in a position to strengthen its
global supremacy by superseding the nuclear option. The U.S. led three major wars in less than four
years against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq from
1999-2003 and in all three cases deployed from tens to
hundreds of thousands of “boots on the ground” after
air strikes and missile attacks. The Pentagon
established military bases in all three war zones and,
although depleted uranium contamination and cluster
bombs are still spread across all three lands,
American troops have not had to contend with an
irradiated landscape. Launching a nuclear attack when
a conventional one serves the same purpose would be
superfluous and too costly in a variety of ways. On April 8 American and Russian presidents Barack
Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) agreement in the Czech
capital of Prague to reduce their respective nation’s
nuclear arsenals and delivery systems (subject to
ratification by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma).
Earlier in the same week the U.S. released its new
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which for the first time
appeared to abandon the first use of nuclear arms. The dark nuclear cloud that has hung over
humanity’s head for the past 65 years appears to be
dissipating. However, the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear
warheads and 2,200 (by some counts 3,500) more in
storage and a triad of land, air and submarine
delivery vehicles. More ominously, though, Washington is forging ahead
with a replacement for the nuclear sword and shield –
for blackmail and for deterrence – with a non-nuclear
model that could upset the previous “balance of
terror” arrangement that has been a criminal nightmare
for six decades, but for sixty years without a massive
missile war. The new sword, or spear, entails plans for
conventional first strike weapon systems employing the
same triad of land, air and sea components – with
space added – and the shield is a worldwide network of
interceptor missile deployments, also in all four
areas. The Pentagon intends to be able to strike first
and with impunity. The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and
destroying the air defenses and strategic, potentially
all major, military forces of other nations will
consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles,
adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles,
hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super
stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by
radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses. Any short-range, medium-range and
intermediate-range missiles remaining in the targeted
country will in theory be destroyed after launching by
kinetic, “hit-to-kill” interceptor missiles. Should
the missiles so neutralized contain nuclear warheads,
the fallout will occur over the country that launches
them or over an adjoining body of water or other
nation of the U.S.’s choosing. A Russian commentary of three years ago described
the interaction between first strike and interceptor
missile systems as follows: “One can invest in the development of a really
effective ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] system and
first-strike weapons, for example, in conventional
high-accuracy systems. The final goal is to create a
capability for a disarming first strike (nuclear,
non-nuclear or mixed) at the enemy’s strategic nuclear
potential. ABM will finish off whatever survives the
first blow.” [2] The long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review Report of
earlier this month asserts the Pentagon’s plans for
“maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and
reinforcing regional security architectures with
missile defenses….” [3] It also confirms that the addition of “non-nuclear
systems to U.S. regional deterrence and reassurance
goals will be preserved by avoiding limitations on
missile defenses and preserving options for using
heavy bombers and long-range missile systems in
conventional roles.” At an April 6 press conference on the Nuclear
Posture Review with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates,
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Admiral Michael
Mullen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Gates said “we will
maintain the nuclear triad of ICBMs [Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles], nuclear-capable aircraft and
ballistic-missile submarines” and “we will continue to
develop and improve non-nuclear capabilities,
including regional missile defenses.” Mullen spoke of
“defend[ing] the vital interests of the United States
and those of our partners and allies with a more
balanced mix of nuclear and non-nuclear means than we
have at our disposal today.” [4] The Pentagon’s Ballistic Missile Defense Review
Report of February 1 stated “The United States will
pursue a phased adaptive approach to missile defense”
and “develop capabilities that are mobile and
relocatable.” Furthermore, “the Administration is committed to
implementing the new European Phased Adaptive Approach
within a NATO context. In East Asia, the United States
is working to improve missile defenses through a
series of bilateral relationships. The United States
is also pursuing strengthened cooperation with a
number of partners in the Middle East.” [5] The Quadrennial Defense Review Report of February
spoke of similar plans. The Review “advances two clear objectives. First,
to further rebalance the capabilities of America’s
Armed Forces to prevail in today’s wars, while
building the capabilities needed to deal with future
threats.” It states “The United States remains the only
nation able to project and sustain large-scale
operations over extended distances” with “400,000 U.S.
military personnel…forward-stationed or rotationally
deployed around the world,” and which is “enabled by
cyber and space capabilities and enhanced by U.S.
capabilities to deny adversaries’ objectives through
ballistic missile defense….” One of its key goals is to “Expand future
long-range strike capabilities” and promote the “rapid
growth in sea- and land-based ballistic missile
defense capabilities.” [6] The U.S. is also intensifying space and cyber
warfare programs with the potential to completely shut
down other nations’ military surveillance and command,
control, communications, computer and intelligence
systems, rendering them defenseless on any but the
most basic tactical level. The program under which Washington is developing
its conventional weapons capacity to supplement its
previous nuclear strategy is called Prompt Global
Strike (PGS), alternately referred to as Conventional
Prompt Global Strike (CPGS). Global Security Newswire recently wrote of the
proposed START II that “Members of Russia’s political
elite are worried about what the agreement says or
does not say about U.S. ballistic missile defense and
‘prompt global strike’ systems….” [7] In fact the successor to START I says nothing about
American interceptor missile or first strike
conventional attack policies, and as such says
everything about them. That is, the new treaty will
not limit or affect them in any manner. After the signing ceremony in Prague on April 8 the
U.S. State Department issued a fact sheet on Prompt
Global Strike which stated: “Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain
any constraints on current or planned U.S.
conventional prompt global strike capability.” By way of background information and to provide a
framework for current U.S. military strategy it added:
“The growth of unrivaled U.S. conventional military
capabilities has contributed to our ability to reduce
the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear
attacks….The Department of Defense (DoD) is currently
exploring the full range of technologies and systems
for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS)
capability that could provide the President more
credible and technically suitable options for dealing
with new and evolving threats.” [8] Describing the constituent parts of PGS, the State
Department press release also revealed: “Current efforts are examining three concepts:
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, Conventional Strike
Missile, and Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. These
projects are managed by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Air Force Space and
Missile Center, and Army Space and Missile Defense
Command respectively….[The START II] warhead ceiling
would accommodate any plans the United States might
develop during the life of this Treaty to deploy
conventional warheads on ballistic missiles.” In language as unequivocal as the State Department
has been known to employ, the statement added: “New START protects the U.S. ability to develop and
deploy a CPGS capability. The Treaty in no way
prohibits the United States from building or deploying
conventionally-armed ballistic missiles.” The Department of Defense “is studying CPGS within
the context of its portfolio of all non-nuclear
long-range strike capabilities including land-based
and sea-based systems, as well as standoff and/or
penetrating bombers….” [9] The non-nuclear missiles referred to are designed
to strike any spot on earth within sixty minutes, but
as the main proponent of PGS, Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine General James Cartwright,
recently boasted, “At the high end,” strikes could be
delivered in “300 milliseconds.” [10] Speaking of the air force third of the GPS triad –
nuclear-armed cruise missiles fired from B-52 bombers,
X-51 unmanned aircraft that can fly at 5,000 miles per
hour, the Blackswift “spaceplane” – Cartwright has
also said that current conventionally armed bombers
are “too slow and too intrusive” for many “global
strike missions.” [11] On January 21 Deputy Secretary of Defense William
Lynn called for placing the Pentagon “on a permanent
footing to fight both low-intensity conflicts to
maintaining air dominance and the ability to strike
any target on Earth at any time….The next air warfare
priority for the Pentagon is developing a
next-generation, deep-penetrating strike capability
that can overcome advanced air defenses….” [12] In a Global Security Network analysis titled “Cost
to Test U.S. Global-Strike Missile Could Reach $500
Million,” Elaine Grossman wrote: “The Obama administration has requested $239.9
million for prompt global strike research and
development across the military services in fiscal
2011….If funding levels remain as anticipated into the
coming years, the Pentagon will have spent some $2
billion on prompt global strike by the end of fiscal
2015, according to budget documents submitted last
month to Capitol Hill.” [13] The land-based component of PGS, Minuteman
intercontinental ballistic missiles with a
conventional payload, will “initially boost into space
like a ballistic missile, dispatch a ‘hypersonic test
vehicle’ to glide and maneuver into a programmed
destination, which could be updated or altered
remotely during flight.” [14] Last month Defense News featured an article with
the title “U.S. Targets Precision Arms for
21st-Century Wars,” which included this excerpt: “To counter…air defenses, the Pentagon wants to
build a host of precision weapons that can hit any
target from thousands of miles away. Known as a family
of systems, these weapons could include whatever the
Air Force chooses as its next bomber, a new set of
cruise missiles and even, someday, hypersonic weapons
developed under the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike
program that would give the speed and range of an ICBM
to a conventional warhead.” [15] A recent Washington Post report on PGS quoted
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning that
“World states will hardly accept a situation in which
nuclear weapons disappear, but weapons that are no
less destabilizing emerge in the hands of certain
members of the international community.” [16] The same source added “the Obama
administration…sees the missiles as one cog in an
array of defensive and offensive weapons that could
ultimately replace nuclear arms,” and quoted the
Pentagon’s Cartwright as affirming: “Deterrence can no
longer just be nuclear weapons. It has to be broader.”
[17] The following day Britain’s Independent ran a story
the following quotes from which should disabuse anyone
hoping that Washington’s “post-nuclear world” will be
any safer a one. Referring to PGS intercontinental ballistic
missiles with (at least in theory) conventional
warheads, the newspaper warned that: “Once they are launched, there could be difficulty
in distinguishing their conventional payloads from
nuclear ones. That in turn could accidentally trigger
a nuclear retaliation by Russia or another
similarly-armed power. “Another danger is that if nuclear weapons are no
longer at issue, there would be a bigger temptation
for American military commanders to become more
cavalier about ordering strikes. And unless
intelligence can be fully relied upon, the chances of
striking mistaken targets are high.” [18] U.S. officials have discussed the prospect of
launching such missiles at a lower altitude than
nuclear ICBMs would travel, but it would take an
almost limitless degree of trust – or gullibility – on
behalf of Russian or Chinese military officials to
depend upon the assurance that ICBMs heading toward or
near their territory were in fact not carrying nuclear
weapons at whatever distance from the earth’s surface
they were flying. In 2007, the year after the Pentagon first
announced its Prompt Global Strike plans, a Russian
analyst wrote that “the Americans are not particularly
worried about their nuclear arsenal” and “have been
thoroughly calculating the real threats to their
security to be ready to go to war, if need be, in real
earnest,” adding “The 20th century saw two world wars
and a third one is looming large.” “Despite the obvious threat to civilization the
United States may soon acquire orbital weapons under
the Prompt Global Strike plan. They will give it the
capacity to deal a conventional strike virtually
anywhere in the world within an hour.” [19] Elaine Grossman wrote last year: “Once it is built, the Conventional Strike Missile
is expected to pair rocket boosters with a fast-flying
‘payload delivery vehicle’ capable of dispensing a
kinetic energy projectile against a target. Upon
nearing its endpoint, the projectile would split into
dozens of lethal fragments potentially capable against
humans, vehicles and structures, according to defense
officials….” [20] A comparably horrifying scenario of the effects of
a PGS attack, this one from the sea-based version,
appeared in Popular Mechanics three years ago: “In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class
submarine surfaces, ready for the president’s command
to launch. When the order comes, the sub shoots a
65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky.
Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more
than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and
out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles.
“At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the
Trident’s four warheads separate and begin their
screaming descent down toward the planet. “Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are
filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the
strength of steel. “Just above the target, the warheads detonate,
showering the area with thousands of rods – each one
up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet.
Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling,
metallic storm is obliterated.” [21] This April 7 former Joint Chief of Staff of the
Russian Armed Forces General Leonid Ivashov penned a
column called “Obama’s Nuclear Surprise.” Referring to the U.S. president’s speech in Prague
a year ago – “The existence of thousands of nuclear
weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War”
– and his signing of the START II agreement in the
same city this April 8, the author said: “No examples of sacrificial service of the US
elites to mankind or the peoples of other countries
can be discovered in US history over the past century.
Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an
African-American president to the White House to
change the country’s political philosophy
traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance?
Those believing that something like that is possible
should try to realize why the US – the country with a
military budget already greater than those of all
other countries of the world combined – continues
spending enormous sums of money on preparations for
war.” [22] Specifically in reference to PGS, he detailed that
“The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a
concentrated strike using several thousand precision
conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would
completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the
target country and thus force it to capitulate. “The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to
sustain the US monopoly in the military sphere and to
widen the gap between it and the rest of the world.
Combined with the deployment of missile defense
supposed to keep the US immune to retaliatory strikes
from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike
initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern
era global dictator. “In essence, the new US nuclear doctrine is an
element of the novel US security strategy that would
be more adequately described as the strategy of total
impunity. The US is boosting its military budget,
unleashing NATO as a global gendarme, and planning
real-life exercises in Iran to test the efficiency of
the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At
the same time, Washington is talking about a
completely nuclear-free world.” [23] 1) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect
Mankind http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/../obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind 2) Alexander Khramchikhin, The MAD situation is
no longer there http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf 4) United States Department of Defense http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/1002BMDR.pdf 6) United States Department of Defense, February
2010 http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf 7) Global Security Newswire, April 2, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/../u-s-extends-missile-buildup-from-poland-and-taiwan-to-persian-gulf 13) Global Security Network, March 15, 2010 |
Add Comments