The Pentagon is working to encircle Eurasia and surround the Eurasian Triple Entente composed of China, Russia, and Iran. For every reaction, however, there is a counter-reaction. …
In the Indian Ocean the Chinese are developing their military infrastructure under what the Pentagon calls the Chinese “string of pearls.” Iran is going through a process of naval expansion, which is seeing it deploy its maritime forces further and further from its home waters in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. All three Eurasian powers, along with several of their allies, also have naval vessels stationed off the shorelines of Yemen, Djibouti, and Somalia in the geo-strategically important maritime corridor of the Gulf of Aden.The US global missile shield is a component of the Pentagon’s strategy to encircle Eurasia and these three powers. In the first instance, this military system is aimed at establishing the nuclear primacy of the US by neutralizing any Russian or Chinese nuclear response to a US or NATO attack. The global missile shield is aimed at preventing any reaction or nuclear “second strike” by the Russians and Chinese to a nuclear “first strike” by the Pentagon.
All the new reports about branches of the US missile shield being established in other parts of the world are sensationalized in terms of how they are portraying its geographic expansion as a new development. These reports ignore the fact that the missile shield was designed to be a global system with components strategically positioned across the world from the onset. The Pentagon had planned this in the 1990s and maybe much earlier. Japan and the Pentagon’s NATO allies have more or less been partners in the military project from the start.
Years ago both the Chinese and Russians were aware of the Pentagon’s global ambitions for the missile shield and made joint statements condemning it as a destabilizing project that would disturb the global strategic balance of power. China and Russia even jointly issued multilateral statements in July 2000 with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan warning that the creation of the Pentagon’s global missile shield would work against international peace and that it contravened the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The US government was repeatedly warned that the steps it was taking would polarize the globe with hostilities that would be reminiscent of the Cold War. The warning fell on deaf and arrogant ears.
The Russians are now rebutting the Pentagon’s global missile shield through very practical steps of their own. These steps involve an expansion of their country’s presence in the high seas and an upgrade of their naval capabilities. Moscow plans on opening new naval bases outside of its home waters and outside of both the shorelines of the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. …
“This study examines how interlocking public private partnerships, including the corporate media, public relations firms, military contractors, policy elites, and government officials, jointly support a US military global domination agenda. We ask the traditional sociological questions regarding who wins, who decides, and who facilitates action inside the most powerful military-industrial complex in the world.”
Essential listening: The global dominance group
“… Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States’ nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia’s arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China’s nuclear forces. Unless Washington’s policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China — and the rest of the world — will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for man years to come.
“… The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover, entirely consistent with the United States’ declared policy of expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States aims to establish military primacy: “Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” To this end, the United States is openly seeking primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.
Washington’s pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless — as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.
What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal — if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left. …”
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine cruised within 200 miles of the East Coast recently in the latest sign Russia is continuing to flex its naval and aerial power against the United States, defense officials said. …
Russia certainly seems to be in a hurry to prepare for something. RT is reportingthat 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters will be constructed in the city of Moscow by the end of 2012. Russian authorities believe that these new shelters are urgently needed because the currentnuclear bomb shelters will only hold approximately half the population and are quite outdated. In addition, there are apparently very few nuclear bomb shelters for those living outside the city center at this point. Officials want virtually the entire population of Moscow to be able to reach a bomb shelter within a matter of minutes. But in this era when the “Cold War” is supposed to be over, why are 5000 nuclear bomb shelters such an urgent necessity?
The following is an RT video news report about these new shelters….
But it isn’t just Russia that has been busy building bomb shelters.
A few years ago, Shanghai’s Civil Defense Office announced the completion of an absolutely massive underground shelter. It was reported that the shelter covers an area of over 90,000 square meters and could accommodate up to 200,000 people at a time.
But that giant shelter is not even as big as the “Underground Great Wall” that was built during that 1960s and 1970s. It is estimated that the “Underground Great Wall” contains 19 miles of tunnels and shelters and could hold up to 300,000 people. It reportedly has a munitions warehouse, a hospital, a theater and even a library.
So what about the U.S. government? Are they building any bomb shelters for us?
Basically, Americans are sitting ducks. Whether it is a rogue nation launching a nuke or a full-out nuclear war, Americans literally have nowhere to go. In the event of a nuclear attack, most of us would be lucky to have enough time to duck and cover and say our prayers.
The sad truth is that the U.S. government considers the threat of nuclear war to be a thing of the past. ….
sigh… I’m sure loyal subjects of the british empire and the 3rd reich had similarly comforting delusions about their own governments. But at least those two empires valued their citizens as cannon fodder if nothing else. The federal government doesn’t even need us for that in the modern age of robots and drones. We are entirely expendable.