Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them ‹ Moon of Alabama ‹ Reader — WordPress.com

Quelle: Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them ‹ Moon of Alabama ‹ Reader — WordPress.com

April 14, 2017

Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them

Media say,
the United States may
or may not
kill a number of North Koreans
for this or that
or no good reason
but call North Korea
‚the volatile and unpredictable regime‘

 

Now consider what the U.S. media don’t tell you about Korea:

BEIJING, March 8 (Xinhua) — China proposed „double suspension“ to defuse the looming crisis on the Korean Peninsula, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Wednesday.“As a first step, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises,“ Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People’s Congress.

Wang said the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is mainly between the DPRK and the United States, but China, as a next-door neighbor with a lips-and-teeth relationship with the Peninsula, is indispensable to the resolution of the issue.

FM Wang, ‚the lips‘, undoubtedly transmitted an authorized message from North Korea: „The offer is (still) on the table and China supports it.“

North Korea has made the very same offer in January 2015. The Obama administration rejected it. North Korea repeated the offer in April 2016 and the Obama administration rejected it again. This March the Chinese government conveyed and supported the long-standing North Korean offer. The U.S. government, now under the Trump administration, immediately rejected it again. The offer, made and rejected three years in a row, is sensible. Its rejection only led to a bigger nuclear arsenal and to more missiles with longer reach that will eventually be able to reach the United States.

North Korea is understandably nervous each and every time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large yearly maneuvers and openly train for invading North Korea and for killing its government and people. The maneuvers have large negative impacts on North Korea’s economy.

North Korea justifies its nuclear program as the economically optimal way to respond to these maneuvers. (…)

East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge

The narrative of a coming conflict between the East and the West has been boiling steadily as the U.S. election nears its end. Even the mainstream media is insinuating the potential for shots fired. Some believe the results of the election will determine the odds of war. There is a different position. It seems the rhetoric of East vs. West and nuclear exchange is being exploited as a distraction away from a different but almost equally catastrophic end game – the death of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Quelle: East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge

Syria-conflict — Alert Memorandum for US-President Obama from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 02.10.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
martin Zeis, 05.10.2016

Dear all,

on Oct 2, 2016 a group of ex-U.S. intelligence officials warned US-President Obama to defuse growing tensions with Russia over Syria by reining in the demonization of President Putin and asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.

Below an excerpt of The Alert Momerandum from the „Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity“ and the subscribers-list. Full text attached (pdf, 4p).

Greets,
Martin Zeis

+++++++

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/02/obama-warned-to-defuse-tensions-with-russia/

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: PREVENTING STILL WORSE IN SYRIA

We write to alert you, as we did President George W. Bush, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, that the consequences of limiting your circle of advisers to a small, relatively inexperienced coterie with a dubious record for wisdom can prove disastrous.* Our concern this time regards Syria.

We are hoping that your President’s Daily Brief tomorrow will give appropriate attention to Saturday’s warning by Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova: “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

Speaking on Russian TV, she warned of those whose “logic is ‘why do we need diplomacy’ … when there is power … and methods of resolving a problem by power. We already know this logic; there is nothing new about it. It usually ends with one thing – full-scale war.”

We are also hoping that this is not the first you have heard of this – no doubt officially approved – statement. If on Sundays you rely on the “mainstream” press, you may well have missed it. In the Washington Post, an abridged report of Zakharova’s remarks (nothing about “full-scale war”) was buried in the last paragraph of an 11-paragraph article titled “Hospital in Aleppo is hit again by bombs.” Sunday’s New York Times totally ignored the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s statements.

In our view, it would be a huge mistake to allow your national security advisers to follow the example of the Post and Times in minimizing the importance of Zakharova’s remarks.

Events over the past several weeks have led Russian officials to distrust Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who parses his words carefully, has publicly expressed that distrust. Some Russian officials suspect that Kerry has been playing a double game; others believe that, however much he may strive for progress through diplomacy, he cannot deliver on his commitments because the Pentagon undercuts him every time. We believe that this lack of trust is a challenge that must be overcome and that, at this point, only you can accomplish this.

It should not be attributed to paranoia on the Russians’ part that they suspect the Sept. 17 U.S. and Australian air attacks on Syrian army troops that killed 62 and wounded 100 was no “mistake,” but rather a deliberate attempt to scuttle the partial cease-fire Kerry and Lavrov had agreed on – with your approval and that of President Putin – that took effect just five days earlier.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric. He also criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …” (…)

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Fred Costello, Former Russian Linguist, USAF
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA, (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

VIPS-Alert-for-Obama-related-to-Syria161002.pdf

Peres: I stopped an Israeli strike on Iran; Jerusalem Post, 30.09.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 01.10.2016

Following a post-mortem published intervention by Israels former president PERES to stop NETANYAHU from attacking Iran.

Peres bombshell: I stopped an Israeli strike on Iran
„Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak were pushing ahead with their plans to attack Iran.“
If not for Shimon Peres’s intervention, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning to bomb Iran, the former president revealed confidentially to The Jerusalem Post over two years ago.
In a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, Peres dropped the bombshell in a conversation with me and Jerusalem Post Managing Editor David Brinn.
I have thought long and hard about whether to publish it, and reached the conclusion that he wouldn’t have told us if he didn’t want us to.
I was editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post at the time and had established a close relationship with Peres, who had retired a month earlier as president.
During the course of the conversation (in which just the three of us sat and chatted over coffee), Brinn asked Peres what he considered the greatest achievement of his presidency. He responded by saying that he had personally intervened to stop Netanyahu from ordering a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.
The following is based on my notes:
Peres: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran.
Me: Can you tell us more?
Peres: I don’t want to go into details, but I can tell you that he was ready to launch an attack and I stopped him. I told him the consequences would be catastrophic.
“Can we report this?” I asked.
“When I’m dead,” Peres replied, with a wry smile.
Almost a year later, on June 7, 2015, I moderated a security panel at The Jerusalem Post Fourth Annual Conference in New York in which Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick got into a heated argument with former IDF chief Lt.-Gen. (res.) Gabi Ashkenazi and the late Mossad director Meir Dagan, charging that they had refused an order from Netanyahu to prepare for an attack against Iran.
In 2010, Glick said, citing a report from the investigative journalism TV program Uvda, “we learned that two of the gentlemen on this panel were given an order to prepare the military for an imminent strike against Iran’s military installations and they refused.”
While pointedly not denying that the order had been given, Dagan insisted: “It was an illegal order. We were always willing to obey any legal order by the prime minister. We never refused an order.”
“You were ordered by the security cabinet,” Glick retorted.
“You were not there. You don’t know what happened there,” said an indignant Dagan.
“There was never a decision about it,” Ashkenazi added, although he acknowledged that he had opposed a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran.
At the Herzliya Conference the following day, Maariv columnist Ben Caspit raised the issue with Peres.
“That journalist [Glick] wasn’t there! How would she know?” Peres raged. “These are issues that should be discussed in the cabinet, not in the media and not in public.”
“Peres had good reason to be angry,” Caspit later wrote on the Al-Monitor media site. “He was one of the key players in that drama, which played out between the summer of 2009 and the summer of 2011. These were some of the tensest times for Israel’s defense establishment. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak were pushing ahead with their plans to attack Iran, while the IDF, headed by Ashkenazi, and the heads of the other defense establishments opposed the move. Ashkenazi and Dagan had the support of none other than the president at the time, Peres, who joined their efforts to thwart the attack.”
Was it in fact Peres, the architect of Israel’s nuclear program, who ultimately foiled an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites? He thought so, although he didn’t say how he did it.

Federico PIERACCINI: Nuclear War Is Not on the Table – Because It Makes No Sense; RI 08.06.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 09.06.2016

Dear all,

recently we’ve posted A Russian Warning undersigned by Russians living and working in the USA:

„We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak – all based on no evidence. But we – knowing both Russian history and the current state of Rus-sian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:
If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead. …“

Source: http://cluborlov.blogspot.de/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html

Below Federico Pieraccini, a military analyst who writes the WAR UPDATE for RI, is raising objections against the thesis of an imminent possibility of nuclear war between the US and Russia.

Greets,
Martin Zeis

=========

Russia Insider, 08.06.2016 — http://russia-insider.com/en/nuclear-war-not-table-because-it-makes-no-sense/ri14860

Nuclear War Is Not on the Table – Because It Makes No Sense

Important personalities in alternative news, or the counter-narrative, have spilled a lot of ink recently on the imminent possibility of nuclear war between the US and Russia.

By Federico Pieraccini

Before considering the issue more closely, it is essential to clarify certain basic principles on which we should all agree as a premise for this analysis.

(a) Russia will never allow any country to make it a victim of such a situation as a world war, condemning its citizens to suffer tens of millions of deaths.

(b) The United States does not have the slightest idea of what it means to lose millions of fellow citizens in an armed conflict. Except for Pearl Harbour, Americans have never fought or seen the devastation of a domestic war against a peer competitor.

(c) Since the collapse of the USSR, NATO has lost its reason for existence. If it has continued to fuel the spending spree of the American military-industrial complex, it is because it has managed to artfully conjure various bogeymen (intercontinental missiles, imaginary enemies, „rogue states“) over the past 25 years, thanks to the connivance of the corrupt mainstream media lies and deception.

(d) There is no missile shield that is capable of neutralizing with 100% accuracy a nuclear attack (of any kind, that is first strike, second strike, pre-emptive or response/retaliation). The S-400, Aegis, S-500, THAAD, and Patriot air-defense systems can all be saturated with a torrent of decoys to safeguard the nuclear-armed missiles.

Having agreed on the above, then what is the most likely scenario?

(…)

If a nuclear exchange is not convenient for anyone, and if MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) cannot be altered willy-nilly, then why does NATO continue to fan the flames, raising the scenario of thermonuclear conflict?

Three main reasons:

1. To intimidate Russia with the ridiculous hope that Moscow will step back from the global arena in which it has been playing the leading role in the last months and years.

2. The constant state of pre-alert as a harbinger of war for billion-dollar contracts for the US arms industry.

3. Placing troops and weapons in distant countries is a way to project power and at the same time make those nations feel important within the Atlantic alliance (with the added benefit that these governments will provide lucrative contracts for the US defense industry) (…)

In short, the beating of the war drums by the neo conservative and neoliberals in relation to Russia is only another way to increase military spending and fatten their own pockets (the same scam is being used when addressing IS, Al Nusra Front/Al-Qaeda as a national threat). Moscow, however, has an excellent opportunity to pursue a military doctrine based on modernization, preparation for conventional and non confrontation with NATO, increasing its zones of influence in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, the Baltic and Black Seas the, Pacific Ocean, the North Pole and elsewhere.

Of course the danger of an accidental confrontation leading to nuclear escalation is a possibility that hangs over humanity, but even in this case, it seems difficult if not impossible to imagine that there would not be a phone call between Moscow and Washington to clarify an accidental situation and thereby prevent tens of millions of deaths.

The engine of the conflicts are money and power. A nuclear war would lead to the exact opposite: poverty, famine and a general absence (for the remnant of the world’s population) of any form of power. A nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it, would mark the end of the financial profits, war, industry, energy, banking and other sectors of the global economy. It would mean the end of all hegemonies, regional or global. (…)

— Full text attached (pdf-file, 4p) —

PIERACCINI-Nuclear-War-won’t-happen160608

 

A Russian Warning; Club Orlov, 31.05.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 01.06.2016

Dear all,

below we’re documenting an urgent appeal of Russians, living and working in the US, adressed to the American Citizens – in particular to the commanders of the US Armed Forces – to do everything in their’s power to preclude the neocons — who’ve taken command of the State Department one and a half decades ago — to kick off a suicidal nuclear war with Russia.

„… First and foremost, we are appealing to the commanders of the US Armed Forces to follow the example of Admiral William Fallon, who, when asked about a war with Iran, reportedly replied “not on my watch.” We know that you are not suicidal, and that you do not wish to die for the sake of out-of-touch imperial hubris. If possible, please tell your staff, colleagues and, especially, your civilian superiors that a war with Russia will not happen on your watch. At the very least, take that pledge yourselves, and, should the day ever come when the suicidal order is issued, refuse to execute it on the grounds that it is criminal. Remember that according to the Nuremberg Tribunal “To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Since Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is no longer a valid defense; please don’t be war criminals.

We also appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear super-power that is capable of destroying America in about an hour. Speak up, break through the barrier of mass media propaganda, and make your fellow Americans aware of the immense danger of a confrontation between Russia and the US. …“

Dimitry ORLOV and A. RAEVSKY (The Saker) are well-known geopolitcal analysts, whose articles, studies, commentaries are taken notice across the globe – except the Western mass media. Recently A. Raevsky specified the anticipatory worst-case-preparations of Russia in: „How Russia Is Preparing for WWIII“ (RI 27.05.2016; URL: http://russia-insider.com/en/how-russia-preparing-wwiii/ri14625 ).

Greets,
Martin Zeis

==========

31.05.2016 – http://cluborlov.blogspot.de/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html

A Russian Warning

We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak – all based on no evidence. But we – knowing both Russian history and the current state of Rus-sian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:

If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead.

Let us take a step back and put what is happening in a historical context. Russia has suffered a great deal at the hands of foreign invaders, losing 22 million people in World War II. Most of the dead were civilians, because the country was invaded, and the Russians have vowed to never let such a disaster happen again. Each time Russia had been invaded, she emerged victorious. In 1812 Nepoleon invaded Russia; in 1814 Russian cavalry rode into Paris. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed Kiev; On May 8, 1945, Soviet troops rolled into Berlin.

But times have changed since then. If Hitler were to attack Russia today, he would be dead 20 to 30 minutes later, his bunker reduced to glowing rubble by a strike from a Kalibr supersonic cruise missile launched from a small Russian navy ship some-where in the Baltic Sea. The operational abilities of the new Russian military have been most persuasively demonstrated during the recent action against ISIS, Al Nusra and other foreign-funded terrorist groups operating in Syria. A long time ago Russia had to respond to provocations by fighting land battles on her own territory, then launching a counter-invasion; but this is no longer necessary. Russia’s new weapons make retaliation instant, undetectable, unstoppable and perfectly lethal.

Thus, if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States. (…)

Full text attached / pdf-file —

A-Russian-Warning160531.pdf