MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/12/most-important-articles-and-documents.html
RUSSIA ANTI-MISSILE MAP (click to enlarge)Introduction:
Freed by the 9-11 September 2001 events that allowed the US to quit observing the international law, namely the AMB Treaty, the US now practically instigates Russia to start a nuclear war.
The 9-11 events were purportedly staged in order to allow the US to quit the AMB Treaty and to develop attack plans against Russia.
True that Russia has made the first steps towards such situation, by placing its ballistic missiles in Iran, but this move was made for security reasons, in order to protect Iran against further US' military invasions, which would've jeopardized Putin's plans of taking control over the World gas reserves, in his attempt to establish the so-called "gas OPEC".
Unlike Iran, Arctic is an ideal place for firing Russian ballistic missiles against the US, while the US has a single plan for Poland: pointing its nukes against Russia.
Very similar to a chess game, the US plans to encircle the Russian Federation and to make it unable to react.
Concretely, the US' plans to place in Poland medium-range ballistic missiles aimed at Russia, which will find Russia in a position of not having time to react properly. A single nuclear missile fired from Poland at the Russian Federation could have devastating effects.
Therefore, if the US will deploy its missile shield in Poland, the only option Russia seems to have is to point its ballistic missiles against Poland and to launch a preeptive strike against the US' military facilities placed there, thing that would eventually traduce in the start of a nuclear war.
Another option is to place its missiles close to the US (in Latin America or in the Arctic region), so as to be able to hit the US' territory with approximately the same precission the US could hit Russia from Poland.
Yet, since the US is in offensive and therefore it is prone to attack, this last option doesn't seem viable, for simple security reasons.
Nuclear Treaties
The US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
The 9-11 events, which took place in September 2001, have brought a majour shift in the World policy.
It's not just that they permitted to the US the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Actually that was a minor gain.
The majour stake was elsewhere, namely: the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty.
In the aftermath of the 9-11 events, the US practically evaded the international law, by quitting the above-mentioned treaty, thing that untied the nuclear hands of the United States and allowed them to place ballistic missiles in Europe.
On December 14 2001, Bush announced:
"Today, as the events of September 11 made all too clear, the greatest threats to both our countries (the US and Russia) come not from each other, or from other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction."
Following this masked belligerent statement, the US pulled out from the ABM Treaty, in June 2002.
In response, on June 14 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by the provisions of the START II Treaty, which banned the use of MIRVs on ICBMs and is hence often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.
A MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) is a collection of nuclear weapons carried on a single intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Using a MIRV warhead, a single launched missile can strike several targets or fewer targets redundantly.
An ICBM is a long-range ballistic missile (greater than 5,500 km or 3,500 miles), typically designed for nuclear weapons delivery and able to carry one or more nuclear warheads.
The MIRVs are the trump card of the Russian military, being able to evade any current missile defence systems, by overwhelming them.
SORT Treaty
Subsequently, Putin proposed the SORT (Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty), which bypassed the START II treaty that was banning the MIRVs, in order to try to soften the harsh blow that Russia suffered in the aftermath of the US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and, therefore, to find means of defense.
SORT treaty was signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002.
According to SORT, both Russia and the US will reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012, when the treaty expires and may be extended by agreement of the Parties, or superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement.
But SORT hasn't yet entered into force and hence, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty will eventually become pointless because there will be no limits on strategic offensive and defensive weapons.
Start I Treaty
START-I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is an agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.
The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR and barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bombers.
But START expires in December 2009 and if it's not extended, nor SORT ratified, there will be no control on the existent number of nuclear warheads.
START II Treaty:
The treaty was officially bypassed by the SORT treaty, agreed to by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at their summit meeting in November 2001, and signed at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002.
Both sides agreed to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012, according to SORT Treaty.
On June 14, 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by START II provisions.
START II, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was signed by United States President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, banned the use of MIRVs on ICBMs and is hence often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.
The INF Treaty
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was an 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Signed in Washington D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on December 8, 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on May 27, 1988 and came into force on June 1 of that year.
The treaty is formally titled The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles and is still in force.
The INF Treaty stipulates that nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles) are banned, hence that no country on the globe is allowed to use such weapons.
Practically, according to the provisions of the INF Treaty, the US is not allowed to use short and medium-range missiles in Poland, so that is why the military hardware that they plan to install there is called "missile shield".
By calling it this way, they evade the provisions of the INF Treaty, because the anti-ballistic missiles are regulated by the ABM Treaty, which the US premeditatedly quit in the aftermath of the 9-11 September events.
In 2007, the Russian president Vladimir Putin said that "the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, paving the way to the deployment of its missile shield in Europe".
Since it feels threatened by the deployment of US' ballistic missiles pointed against it, Russia could quit the INF Treaty and resume its production of short and medium-range ballistic missiles pointed against Europe, in order to try to defend itself from an eventual American attack launched from Poland, but various reasons hinder it doing such move.
If Russia quits the INF Treaty, not just the Russian Federation takes avantage of this move, but also the US, which will place its short and medium-range missiles very close to Russia's border, where NATO is now.
Another point is that Russia used the INF Treaty as a bargaining chip in various situations.
When former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proposed to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, that his country join the United States' initiative to replace ICBM nukes with conventional warheads, the latter advised him to consider withdrawing from the INF Treaty.
Rumsfeld's Proposal
Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense, asked Russia to support a US' proposal to use intercontinental ballistic missiles whose nuclear warheads would be replaced with conventional warheads, to attack terrorists.
ICBMs
ICBMs (Intercontinental ballistic missiles or long-range missiles) are a special category of missiles and are not regulated by the INF Treaty, which still bind both the US and the Russian Federation.
The INF Treaty deals only with short and medium-range ballistic missiles and hence, the long-range ballistic missiles (ICBM's) are exempt from that.
According to the INF Treaty, the US is not allowed to use short and medium-range ballistic missiles, let alone to place them in a third country such as Poland. Results that a viable option for the US are the ICBMs, which have a special regime and which are more advanced from a technological point of view.
There are just seven countries that own ICBMs: the US, the Russian Federation, France, China, India, Israel and North Korea.
Sharing ICBMs with non-nuclear states (such as Poland) seems a difficult task, especially taking into consideration the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) hinders the US, if not legally, at least morally, of deploying its ICBMs in Poland.
Poland is now a NATO member.
NATO interpreted nuclear sharing to be legal under the NPT, but according to the current understanding of most non-NATO parties to the NPT, NATO nuclear sharing probably violates Articles I and II of the Treaty.
Article I of the NPT prohibits nuclear weapon states that are parties to the NPT from sharing their weapons with non-nuclear states:
"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices."
Article II contains a parallel commitment on the part of non-nuclear states parties not to receive them:
"Each non-nuclear weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
The concept of nuclear sharing is ambiguous, concerning the violability of the international law.
"Both the Non-Aligned Movement and critics inside NATO believe that NATO's nuclear sharing violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibit the transfer and acceptance, respectively, of direct or indirect control over nuclear weapons.
"The U.S. insists its forces control the weapons and that no transfer of the nuclear bombs or control over them is intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the [NPT] treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.
However the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO countries practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information.
Even if the U.S. argument is considered legally correct, some argue such peacetime operations appear to contravene both the objective and the spirit of the NPT". - Wikipedia.
Therefore, It's true that the US is not legally banned to share nuclear weapons with the NATO members, but the move of deploying ICBMs in Poland would bring serious consternation amongst the European Union member states and not only, destroying irremediably the image of the United States around the World.
Under these circumstances, Rumsfeld resorted to a diplomatic trick, namely the above-mentioned proposal that he made to the former Russian minister of defense, Sergei Ivanov: to replace the nuclear warheads on ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads, allegedly in order to attack terrorists.
Russians, however, never believed him, because non-nuclear independently targetable warheads are the best way to disguise nuclear warheads.
In other words, if the U.S. or Russia should launch such a missile, no one would know for sure what sort of warhead - nuclear or conventional - it was carrying.
As a result, Rumsfeld's proposal was bluntly refused, Russia using the INF Treaty as a bargaining chip.
The consequences of the US' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty:
Therefore, since Russia refused Rumsfeld's proposal of replacing nuclear warheads on ICBMs with conventional warheads, the only choice the US now has is to rely on the ABM Treaty.
The US quit the ABM in the aftermath of the 9-11 September events, which the US carefully planned just in order to be able to bypass the international law and to deploy its ballistic missiles in Europe, pompously and soothingly called "missile shield designed to protect against attack by rogue states".
But since this is just a missile shield and not a ground-based missile launch control center, how is the US going to bypass the INF Treaty and to deploy ballistic medium-range missiles aimed against Russia, since a missile shield, by definition, is supposed to have just a defensive character?
RIA Novosti tries to enlighten us on the matter:
"Any medium-range missile defense system would have to be tested using the appropriate type of missiles, but both the United States and Russia destroyed their medium-range missiles as part of the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces). Hence, Russia must start serious talks with the Americans on an ABM system. – RIA Novosti"
Since the US quit the ABM treaty, it is allowed to place anti-ballistic missiles in a third country.
And as RIA Novosti states, in order to be tested, a medium-range missile defense system require USING the appropriate type of missiles, hence allows the US to practically deploy in Poland nuclear missiles which can hit Russia, bypassing the INF Treaty and shooting medium-range missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
Aside of the Arctic response, Russia could now choose a symmetrical option of placing its medium-range ballistic missiles in a Latin American country, such as Venezuela or Cuba (Russia had nuclear facilities in Cuba before, topic known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis").
In any case, the move of redeploying medium-range ballistic missiles in Latin America would not only sound belligerent, but also wouldn't help Russia much, as the great US' capability to strike Russia from Poland leaves the Russian Federation without reaction.
Orbital Interceptors:
Until now, we talked only about ground-launched ballistic missiles, which the US is allowed to use since it quit the ABM Treaty.
But there is one more serious issue: the space-launched missiles.
The US is much more advanced than Russia as far as the technology of orbiting space-based lasers concerns and which was regulated by the provisions of the ABM Treaty, until the US withdrew from the treaty it in the spring of 2002.
The decision by George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty spurred research beneficial to orbiting space-based lasers as part of a global missile defense shield.
Pulling out of the ABM treaty does not tie directly into moving ahead with space-based laser weaponry.
However, according to SPACE.com sources, this action sets in motion ballistic missile defense research and technology work that can advance the day of orbiting lasers.
The US actually proposed to deploy orbital missile interceptors in place of the European missile defense system.
The disadvantage of the orbital weapons is that, unlike ground-bases facilities, they can't be repaired or upgraded anytime, yet this orbital program is another headache for Russia, because Russian military is just trained to disable orbital weapons, but the Russian army doesn't have its own missile defense system based on orbital missile interceptors.
Conclusion:
Russia doesn't have many options now that it witnessed its isolation from Europe and, therefore, it must keep Iran tight in its hands, Iran being its trump card.
The US is strong military, yet not as strong as to be able to defeat Russia in an instant.
And while the US' military technology is probably more advanced than the Russian one, Russia and its allies, mainly Iran, yet own the energy, which is the key to the European Union gate.
Despite the uncomfortable situation it found itself in, with its national security threatened, Russia must act wise and negotiate with the US, in order to press it to ratify the SORT and to push for the further extension of the START I treaty.
And even though the US doesn't seem to hesitate when it comes to achieving its goals, dipolmacy having little effect on its decisions, a policy of bargain and blackmail would have the desired effect of making the US to revise its position.
A belligerent stance of Russia would only lead to more problems, because Russia is still handicapped military, after the shock that it suffered after the USSR collapsed two decades ago.
~Veronica Bicer
See also:
ORBITAL MISSILE INTERCEPTORS:
http://putinfreakshow.blogspot.com/2006/04/orbital-missile-interceptors.html
REFERENCES:
Five steps for preventing a new Cold War
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070723/69487893.html
Signing of Czech-U.S. radar deal delayed - Czech Foreign Ministry
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080428/106099226.html
Missile defense - back to the sixties
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080410/104778874.html
Two missile defense systems for Europe
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080408/104106486.html
CNN.com - U.S. quits ABM treaty - December 14, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Anti-ballistic missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile
ABM Treaty Withdrawal Likely to Boost Space-Based Laser Work
http://www.space.com/news/sbl_011218.html
INF treaty
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf1.html
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
Nuclear Sharing in NATO: Is it Legal?
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-3/nato.html
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Reduction_Treaty
Missile Technology Control Regime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime
Nuclear sharing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
HAGUE CODE OF CONDUCT AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILE PROLIFERATION (HCOC)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/pdfs/icoc.pdf
International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Conduct_against_Ballistic_Missile_Proliferation
Donald Rumsfeld as the serpent
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060830/53313650.html
Should Russia quit the treaty on medium- and short-range missiles?
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070411/63460805.html
U.S. military space lobby proposes orbital missile defense system
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080410/104777902.html
Intercontinental ballistic missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM
Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
Should Russia quit the treaty on medium- and short-range missiles?
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070411/63460805.html
Why terminate the INF Treaty?
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071207/91436776.html
No final decision to quit INF treaty - FM Lavrov
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070216/60863642.html
Russia may unilaterally quit INF Treaty - General Staff
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070215/60795303.html
NATO extension, an end in itself
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080331/102574381.html
Russia hails Sarkozy nuclear missile plan
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080321/101960177.html
Sarkozy’s INF good intentions
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080325/102156804.html
Collective security: dusting off old cliches
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071217/92769318.html
Defense budget: nuclear or conventional?
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071119/88732218.html
Russia can offer low-cost response to U.S. missile system
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080212/99033702.html
Asymmetrical Iskander missile systems
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071115/88281798.html
Russia, U.S. call on all countries to join INF Treaty-1
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071025/85515703.html
Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander missile system
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88066432.html
MIM-104 Patriot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
ABM verbal commitments are not very meaningful
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080319/101739730.html
Washington's initiative may untie the Iranian knot
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071024/85270321.html
Russia and the United States adamant on ABM in Europe
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071010/83352549.html
Cuban Missile Crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Other nuclear treaties:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Non-Proliferation Treaty
Threshold Test Ban Treaty
START II
SALT I and II
==========================================================
1 comments:
Nice blog as for me. It would be great to read more concerning this topic. Thank you for sharing that info.
Sexy Lady
English escorts
Post a Comment