In Space: Part One
The London Independent today carries the headline "SPACE: AMERICA'S NEW WAR ZONE". It has, however, long been a globalist neoconservative agenda to weaponize, fully militarize and aggressively control space in order to achieve what they refer to as "full spectrum dominance" over the entirety of the planet Earth.
In order to understand what the world will be like in 25-30 years and how the new world order will micromanage the entire globe, this is the area that needs to be studied now. In this two part study I will break down how total militarization of space is the agenda to be implemented and how this will provide the final piece in the jigsaw for the globalist vision of a one world order on the planet.
President Bush has recently signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."
The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, asserts that the US government has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests.
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.
It says the US's priorities are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership" and to enable "unhindered US operations in and through space to defend our interests there". But the policy also claims that national security is "critically" dependent upon space capabilities. As a result it calls on the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain US advantage and support defence and intelligence transformations".
This is nothing new as The DOD has been developing weapons for space for years, often under the guise that the weapons systems are purely defensive. A little research reveals that is 180 degrees from the truth. Ballistic missile defense systems or components of the "missile defense shield" are based on science fiction and have consistently failed, leading many experts to seriously question the credibility of the program and ask whether it may simply be a fraudulent cover for an aggressive offensive program to weaponize space.
In order to find the real motive behind the push into space, one only has to examine the rhetoric of its proponents and the projections contained within policy documents. Again and again it is made plain that its real purpose is not for defense, but for global power projection.
In recent years some nations have called for talks to ban the deployment of weapons in space. Currently the deployment of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty.
When proposals to ban the weaponisation of space have been put forward at the UN, the United States has routinely abstained. But last October the US voted against a UN resolution calling for the banning of weapons in space.
The long standing globalist space policy mirrors the neoconservative doctrine of military preemption and unilateral actions. The latest policy document is just the latest in a long line of predecessors.
On December 13th 2001, Bush confirmed that the US would be withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the main purpose of the ABM was to prohibit the development, testing and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based and ground-based ABM systems regardless of the technology used. Whilst Russian President Vladimir Putin described the move as simply “a mistake”, 33 members of Congress, headed by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich maintained that the treaty is still legally alive and proceeded to put together a law suit against President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The suit charged that the scrapping of the ABM Treaty by Bush
"…violates the treaty power in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution and "is inconsistent with two centuries of practice and with the overall design of separation of powers and checks and balances of the Constitution.” Furthermore, the complaint charges, "Since treaties have the status of laws, the President's proposed termination of the ABM Treaty without the assent of Congress violates Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, which obliges the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Bush's attempt to withdraw from the ABM Treaty not only violates the US Constitution. It also violates international law and Article XV of the ABM Treaty itself. Article XV, paragraph 2, of the Treaty states that either nation may withdraw giving six months' notice "if extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests."
The events of September 11th 2001, whilst having nothing to do with vulnerabilities to ballistic missiles, provided a mandate for the assertion of US power with space weapons at its core. This is evident in a secret Pentagon planning report that was leaked to the New York Times in March of 2002 entitled ‘Nuclear Posture Review’. The classified text provides a snapshot of a world view transformed by 9/11. It refers to a "New Triad," which it describes as comprising the "offensive strike leg," (nuclear and conventional forces) plus "active and passive defenses,"(Ballistic Missile Defense [BMD] systems and other defenses) and "a responsive defense infrastructure" (the ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing). The report also makes it clear that BMD is not for defending the US from surprise missile attacks; rather its main purpose is to secure “freedom of action”:
"Advances in defensive technologies will allow U.S. non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities to be coupled with active and passive defenses to help provide deterrence and protection against attack, preserve U.S. freedom of action, and strengthen the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments.'
In other words, the US DoD wishes to make easily possible the ability to deploy troops anywhere without the risk of sustaining unacceptable repercussions. As the Western States Legal Foundation have suggested:
"The fear is not that there will be a surprise attack on the US but rather that when either threatened or under attack by US forces, an adversary might be able to prevent an attack or force a US withdrawal by using weapons of mass destruction against US or allied troops or against US or allied civilian populations."
On June 1st Bush gave a speech to the West Point military Academy that officially committed the US to a doctrine of permanent pre-emptive warfare against any state, citing a “conflict between good and evil” and asserting that "the war on terror will not be won on the defensive."
In the same month it was announced in a briefing by Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers that there was to be a merger between the US Space Command and the US Strategic Command. Donald Rumsfeld commented:
"it's our intention to merge two of our major unified commands -- the U.S. Space Command the U.S. Strategic Command -- into a single entity that will be responsible for both early warning of, and defense against, missile attack as well as long-range conventional attacks."
Such a unified Command would therefore integrate strategic nuclear missiles with Ballistic Missile Defense, enabling such pre-emptive warfare to be carried out. Thus is revealed the true rationale behind the rush to scrap the ABM Treaty and deploy missile defense systems.
The Bush Administration explicitly laid out these revelations together in its September 2002 publication National Security Strategy of the United States, which is akin to a guidebook for global domination, asserting that “the best defense is offense”. The publication’s main points are summarized as follows:
• “The US National Security Strategy
will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects
the union of our values and our national interests.”
Of course, the US proved its point with the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. At the same time at the National Space Symposium in Colorado, Air Force Col. Robert Kent Traylor, deputy director of space operations and integration at the Missile Defense Agency, gave a speech in which he said that the pre-invasion assaults on Iraq from the air had proved the value of counter air operations as a vital element in missile defense. He went on to say that missile-defense planners needed to start thinking about pre-emptive strikes on missile fields as a key element of missile defense, and that "The Air Force views active missile defense as a missed opportunity for counter-air operations."
Such merging of BMD with the pre-emptive unilateral posture reveals it as one cog in the overall quest for global military superiority.
Perhaps the most revealing in the series of defense policy documents is a report released by the extremely influential and powerful “neo-conservative” think Tank, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). Released in September 2000, before George W Bush became the 43rd President, Rebuilding America’s Defenses represented the doctrine of luminaries such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. All would go on to take up positions of primary importance within the Bush Administration so it is quite safe to assume the validity of the report’s recommendations to the incoming regime. Indeed, when comparing the report with the National Security Strategy of two years later, one finds that its recommendations are being made official policy. The report indiscriminately calls for US Military dominance and control of global economic markets and reveals missile defense as a core element in this goal:
" In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies…have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces…will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland…is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective…system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence."
Here we have yet another instance where weapons as "defenses" are cited as a prerequisite to prevent other states from deterring the US from attacking them preemptively. Even more chilling is the fact that the report states that such ultimate dominance and control will likely be a long process “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” This event, although having nothing to do with the threat of ballistic missiles, occurred around one year after the publication of the PNAC report.
The rush to deploy BMD is not a defensive move, it is indeed intended to provide, as US air force Lt. Col. Robert Bowman stated almost 25 years ago, “the missing link to a first strike capability”. Bowman quit the original Regan "Star Wars" project when he realized it had nothing to do with defense and everything to do with total planetary military dominance. Bowman is now a key activist against the space policy and the neoconservative globalist agenda in general.
Advocates of a BMD system should be made aware of this true purpose. Furthermore advocates of a limited ground-based BMD should be made aware of the long term goals of the permanent preemptive war footing described here. BMD is not to be separated from the so called ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’; it is an integral cog in a larger machine to achieve what has been termed ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’. If one reads further the revealing PNAC report, the following alarming statement is to be found: “No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space.”
The next part of this study will outline the shocking quest to turn the serene environment of space into the new “Warfighter’s Edge”.
INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
INFOWARS.net Copyright © 2001-2006 Alex Jones All rights reserved.