Tags
ABM bases, China, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, ICBMs, N. Korean "Crisis", preparations for preemptive nuclear strike, Russia, THAAD
What the N. Korean “Crisis” Is Really About
Paul Craig Roberts
The North Korean “crisis” is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.
So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?
It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The “Iranian threat” was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran’s nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason for the N. Korean “crisis” is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China’s border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington’s efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea. https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/
In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.
THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China’s retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington’s preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear cruise missiles and the Russian air force.
But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested in Europe’s fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.
The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington’s unilateral behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?
What would you do?
On April 27 I posted on this website a column, “Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China.” My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff and provided links for his expression of concern such as: https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
As the readers of my website are a self-selected group of intelligent and concerned people who want to know what is the reality as opposed to what is The Matrix, I was somewhat taken aback when several wrote to me that they disagreed with me that Washington planned to nuke Russia and China. I write clearly; yet here were several readers who mistook my report on the conclusion of the Russian general staff for my opinion! I was also amazed that the readers thought that it mattered what they think or what I think. All that matters is what the Russian and Chinese leadership think.
I then looked at the comment sections on other sites that repost my columns, and there were the trolls hired by the CIA, Mossad, National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros, NATO, US State Department, and others denouncing me for promoting nuclear war. Of course, it is Washington that is promoting nuclear war, and it is Washington that has convinced Russia and China that a preemptive nuclear strike is in their future.
Washington, being full of hubris, thinks that this will scare Russia and China and that the two governments will submit to Washington.
Possibly they will, but I would not bet the life of the planet on it.
It is conceiveable that education in the US and throughout the Western world is so poorly done that readers educated in recent decades simply cannot comprehend what they are reading. How else to explain the mischaracterizations of my report on the conclusion of the Russian General Staff? The only other explanation is that websites that have comment sections provide the opportunity for the ruling elites to hire the slander of truth-tellers.
I seldom see an intelligent comment on websites that have comment sections. Most comments come from people too ashamed to speak in their real names and who are unwilling to provide their real email addresses. Almost all comments come from narcistic ignorant fools hiding behind fake names and fake email addresses and from paid trolls.
I don’t write in order to be slandered by paid trolls and ignorant narcistic fools. I regard it as highly irresponsible for websites to undercut their writers with anonymous accusations and slander from no one knows who. There should be no comment sections unless there is a firm check on the commentator’s real name and real email address.
Sites that do not have this requirement no longer have my permission to repost my columns.
Washington, as the Russian and Chinese governments comprehend, has placed life on earth under dire threat. This is serious business. There is no space for ignorant narcistic idiots and paid trolls to be using the Internet to attack the few who truthfully report the dire threat that all life faces from Washington’s drive for world hegemony.
Related:
How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze — by Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, Theodore A. Postol
Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet.
“North Korea: War Games, Cyber War, De-Escalation and Provocation, Some Speculations”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/north-korea-war-games-cyber-war-de-escalation-and-provocation-some-speculations/
Weekend regards
I believe that Iran and North Korea are victims of U.S. bullying, and that their posturing threats are largely a reaction to said bullying. However, I would not bet the farm on a large-scale war not emanating from either country. An anti-missile defense system (probably Russian) was able to neutralize many of the Tomahawk missiles fired in the Syria airport strike. In 1991, Iran attacked Israel with missiles during the Gulf War. Several short-range, nuclear missiles could be successfully deployed against Seoul which is only about 30 miles from the North Korean border. If WW3 is started by a minor player like N. Korea or Iran, incidental victims, such as the South Koreans, can thank the U.S. for their destruction.
58 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reacher their target.
This article shows what Russian defence specialists themselves think:
https://jamestown.org/program/russian-air-defense-us-strike-al-shayrat/
Relevant bits:
“These systems are not principally designed to counter low-flying subsonic Tomahawks; their capacity to attempt this is limited to approximately 30–40 km. Colonel (retired) Mikhail Khodarenok, a defense correspondent for Gazeta.ru and an air defense specialist, notes the Al-Shayrat airbase is located around 200 km from Latakia, which he suggests lies at the outer limit of the S-400 range: to strike a target at this range requires it to be flying at an altitude of 8–9 km. If it flies lower, the S-400’s multifunctional radar cannot see the cruise missile due to the curvature of the Earth’s surface. Similarly, the S-300V4 at Tartus has a range of around 100 km and requires a target altitude of 6–7 km. According to Air Force Colonel General (retired) Igor Maltsev, the former chief of the Main Staff in the Air Defense Troops, since Tomahawks fly at 50–60 meters above the ground, the outer effective range for the S-300V4 system would only be around 24–26 km in cross country terrain. Maltsev concluded that the S-400 and S-300V4 located in Latakia and Tartus did not have even a theoretical chance to counter the US cruise missile strike. Moreover, to protect against a similar strike in the future, Maltsev believes Al-Shayrat would need four to five S-400 battalions, alongside a radar reconnaissance system to provide depth of detection against cruise missiles, in addition to an air regiment of Su-30SM or Su-35 fighters (Gazeta.ru, April 7).
…
Noting the Russian defense ministry version, which places the attack between 03:42 (Moscow time) and 03:56, the author argues nearly 30 pairs of Tomahawks were fired almost simultaneously. The time interval from the lead pair to the final pair was about seven minutes, giving a total time interval of 14 minutes. Fired from south of Crete, in the Mediterranean Sea, at a distance of 1,100 km from the Syrian coast, Russian air defense could not have detected the launches. Novichkov highlights the use of EW-18G Growler aircraft to provide electronic warfare (EW) cover for the attack, and suggests the cruise missiles could have crossed the Syrian coast close to Tartus, allowing some degree of tracking. This would provide the Russian military with a real world lesson in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) in Syria, which can be applied elsewhere (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, April 10).”
I find Russia’s claims about the Tomahawk’s poor performance amusing, since they sound very similar to what the U.S. said about Russia’s own cruise missile strikes back in October of 2015:
BBC: “Four Russian cruise missiles fired at Syria from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran, unnamed US officials say”
But what makes me laugh out loud at Gen Igor Konashenkov’s lying is this statement he made in defence againts U.S. accusations that their cruise missiles landed in Iran:
“”Any professional knows that during these operations we always fix the target before and after impact. All our cruise missiles hit their target,” said spokesman Gen Igor Konashenkov.”
Huh, so if the targets are “fixed” why is he now claiming the Tomahawk’s didn’t land? Weren’t they “fixed” as well and isn’t he a “professional” too?
Psychological warfare by the Russians to distract from the fact that they failed to intercept the missiles.
“Psychological warfare by the Russians to distract from the fact that they failed to intercept the missiles.”
Perhaps.
What has been strange is seeing the alt-media repeating these claims, without any fact checking. I tried posting this exact article elsewhere and was promptly called a “NATO troll”. Bizarre.
I feel that, in their desire to not believe the MSM, many believe anyone who says the opposite.
Consortium News, for example, has some pretty good writers. But Robert Parry’s claims about a CIA agent telling him that drunk Ukrainian soldiers with beer bottles strewn on the ground were seen by U.S. satellites (thus proving they shot down the Boeing) simply make me less trustful.
Who to trust these days?
“I feel that, in their desire to not believe the MSM, many believe anyone who says the opposite.”
Entirely agree. I find myself often having to “check” that very impulse in myself. When it’s a matter of war, all sides resort to the same tried and true methods of warfare, and propaganda has always been used to great effect by every state.
Who to trust? Yourself and in so far as you can gauge the limits of what you can confidently assert that you “know.” Easier said than done. And we can not think but on the basis of more assumptions than we will ever live long enough to critically assess. Consequently, to some degree, we are always in a state of (partial) delusion. The only remedy is to try not to take anything one fervently believes to be more than a tentative opinion that previously unknown information may make entirely untenable.
“I now find it takes me longer and longer to truly “understand” something. “
So sorry to hear that, Matt.
I find that it takes me less and less time.
If you would like an explanation as to why your comments will now be filtered out as spam, go and read my Comment Policy.
You seem like a reasonably smart guy, which in an obvious way is regrettable. But ‘nuff said, eh.