[Peace-discuss] US missiles in Europe

[Brussel Morton K.]

What is disgusting and disappointing is that NATO, i.e., the European  
powers, have bought into this ugly business. Russia certainly is  
aware of what is going on, and has said so; it perceives the growing  
threats at its boundaries. Yes, it is disappointing even though we  
understand that the U.S has been calling the shots for NATO for a  
long time. The people of the western powers are far less eager to  
support NATO's operations, even in the Czech Republic and Poland, but  
they, as we, find themselves stifled.

Thanks for the post.  --mkb

On Apr 28, 2008, at 8:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [Two or three meetings ago there was a discussion at AWARE about  
> the USG attempt to put a missile "defense" system in Eastern  
> Europe.  Here's an update on how serious the matter is, for all  
> it's ignored in US political discussion. --CGE]
>
>
> The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is,  
> virtually, a declaration of war.
>
> Simply imagine how the US would react if Russia or China or Iran or  
> in fact any foreign power dared even to think about placing a  
> missile defense system at or near the borders of the US, let alone  
> carrying out such plans. In these unimaginable circumstances, a  
> violent US reaction would be not only almost certain but also  
> understandable, for reasons that are simple and clear.
>
> It is well known on all sides that missile defense is a first  
> strike weapon. Respected US military analysts describe missile  
> defense as "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action." It  
> "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military  
> power abroad.” “By insulating the homeland from reprisal, [missile  
> defense] will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United  
> States to `shape' the environment elsewhere." "Missile defense  
> isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global  
> dominance.” “Missile defense is about preserving America's ability  
> to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense.  
> And that's exactly why we need it.” All quotes, from respected  
> liberal and mainstream sources -- who favor developing the system  
> and placing it at the remote limits of US global dominance.
>
> The logic is simple, and well understood. A functioning missile  
> defense system informs potential targets that “we will attack you  
> as we please, and you will not be able to retaliate, so you cannot  
> deter us.” The system is being marketed to Europeans as a defense  
> against Iranian missiles. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons and long- 
> range missiles, the chances of its using them to attack Europe are  
> lower than the chances of Europe being hit by an asteroid, so if  
> defense is the reason, Czech Republic should be installing a system  
> to defend the country from asteroids. If Iran were to indicate even  
> the slightest attention of such a move, the country would be  
> vaporized. The system is indeed aimed at Iran, but as a first  
> strike weapon. It is a component of the escalating US threats to  
> attack Iran, threats that are in themselves a serious violation of  
> the UN Charter, though admittedly this issue does not arise in  
> outlaw states.
>
> When Gorbachev agreed to allow a unified Germany to join a hostile  
> military alliance, he was accepting a very severe threat to Russian  
> security, for reasons too familiar to review. In return, the US  
> government made a firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East. The  
> pledge was violated a few years later, arousing little comment in  
> the West, but raising the threat of military confrontation. So- 
> called “missile defense” ratchets the threat of war a few notches  
> higher. The “defense” it provides is to increase the threat of  
> aggression in the Middle East, with incalculable consequences, and  
> the threat of terminal nuclear war.
>
> Over half a century ago, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein  
> issued an extraordinary appeal to the people of the world, warning  
> them that they face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and  
> inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall  
> mankind renounce war?” Accepting a so-called “missile defense  
> system” makes that choice, in favor of an end to the human race,  
> perhaps in the not-too-distant future.
>
> From a letter to Jan Tamáš
> Noam Chomsky
> 16.3.2008
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss