Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases

Moscow is concerned over the potential threat to its nuclear capabilities from any US-European missile defense system that is developed without Russia’s participation.

Moscow has 521 intercontinental ballistic missiles and missiles deployed on submarines and heavy bombers, while the US has 882, according to the newly published data.

­The Russian Foreign Ministry has published data on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the two countries under the new START treaty. Moscow and Washington have 1,537 and 1,800 nuclear warheads respectively. As for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, Russia has at present 865 compared to the US’ 1,124.

Moscow and Washington exchanged the data concerning their nuclear capabilities on February 5, and the information was specified to March 22. The US State Department first published data on the US strategic potential on June 1. The data shows that the US has more intercontinental ballistic missiles, warheads and launchers than Russia.

The two sides signed the new strategic arms reduction treaty (START) on April 8 in Prague. The agreement limits the number of warheads on deployed ballistic missiles and long-range bombers for both sides to 1,550. Deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers are limited to 800.

Earlier this month, Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said that Moscow “will not tolerate any doubts” concerning its strategic nuclear capabilities. Russia will find different ways to reduce any missile threat to nothing, he said. …

The Obama administration’s record on secrecy and surveillance is a disgrace and should not be sanitised by unearned prizes

On 28 March 2011, President Obama was given a “transparency award” from five “open government” organisations: OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and OpenTheGovernment.org. Ironically – and quite likely in response to growing public criticism regarding the Obama administration’s lack of transparency – heads of the five organisations gave their award to Obama in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House. If the ceremony had been open to the press, it is likely that reporters would have questioned the organisations’ proffered justification for the award, in contrast to the current reality:

• President Obama has not decreased, but has dramatically increased governmental secrecy. …
• There were 544,360 requests for information last year under the Freedom of Information Act to the 35 biggest federal agencies – 41,000 requests more than the year before. Yet the bureaucracy responded to 12,400 fewer requests than the prior year …
• Obama has invoked baseless and unconstitutional executive secrecy to quash legal inquiries into secret illegalities more often than any predecessor. …
• [etc., etc.] …

The Guardian

By Simon Tisdall
June 8, 2011

Behind closed doors in the White House and the Pentagon, a battle is raging over the wisdom of a complete exit

Retreating armies make easy targets … Barack Obama … now faces two not dissimilar challenges: how to get US forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq with the minimum of bloodshed and the maximum of dispatch. Avoiding descent into post-withdrawal chaos would be an added bonus.

Easy answers are not available. In Afghanistan, several factors suggest Obama may speed up the size and pace of troop reductions due to begin next month. The mind-boggling cost of the war, estimated at $2bn a week or $110bn a year, is increasingly insupportable as his 2012 re-election bid looms. Americans, like Britons, are also sickened by the continuing human cost.

The elimination of Osama bin Laden, who launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, has created a palpable sense of “job done” that Obama is finding hard to resist. “By killing Bin Laden, by blunting the momentum of the Taliban, we have now accomplished a lot of what we set out to accomplish 10 years ago,” he declared this week. Washington’s developing narrative is that last year’s surge of 30,000 extra troops into the south has worked, even though this is not wholly true.

The US currently has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Influential people such as Senator Carl Levin are demanding a minimum drawdown of 15,000 by year’s end. Some Democrats want them all home well before the target date of 2014. Obama says he will give his decision in a speech later this month.

But behind closed doors in the White House and the Pentagon, a rearguard battle royal is raging. …

In Iraq, as in Afghanistan … the prospect of a continuing presence of quasi-permanent US military bases in both countries, lasting far beyond the nominal exit dates, is a very real one. …

Read on: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/us-withdraw-talk-iraq-afghanistan

RIA Novosti
May 4, 2011

Topic: U.S. missile shield in Europe

Moscow: Romania and the United States should expect counter measures from Russia in response to a missile shield agreement, a senior Russian lawmaker said on Wednesday.

Bucharest announced on Tuesday that it had reached an agreement with the United States to deploy a U.S. missile interceptor system at a disused Soviet airbase on its territory.

“Military specialists in the United States, NATO and Romania should be absolutely aware that any measure entails counter-measures,” said Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the foreign policy committee of State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

He said the counter measures would be used with the sole purpose of protecting Russia and would not be aimed at any particular state.

Moscow issued an urgent request on Tuesday for legal guarantees from the United States that its missile shield will not target Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.

“My personal point of view is that the ideal scenario would be for the United States to issue legal guarantees, but the Americans are unlikely to do that,” Kosachev said.

The head of the State Duma’s defense committee, Viktor Zavarzin, said the U.S.-Romanian deal would have “a negative impact on inter-European relations and undermine the existing balance of forces and interests.”

“And this, in turn, will provoke an unnecessary escalation of tensions,” he added.

[Moscow is concerned that U.S. interceptors would have the capacity to target Russia’s long-range missiles once the missile shield is fully deployed by 2020 under Mr. Obama’s “phased adaptive approach” plan – Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space]

Read more: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110504/163853797.html

The Defense Department has released an updated strategic document outlining the missions, roles and geographic areas of responsibility of its combatant commands.

The most significant change in the Unified Command Plan 2011 shifts areas of responsibility in the Arctic, with the U.S. European Command and U.S. Northern Command now sharing responsibility for the region. Previously, the two commands and the U.S. Pacific Command covered the region. The plan also empowers the Northern Command to advocate for Arctic capabilities. …

http://defensesystems.com/articles/2011/04/11/dod-releases-new-strategic-plan.aspx?admgarea=DS

The Global Network mourns for the people of Japan following the recent disastrous chain of events that began with the earthquake, tsunami and then the nuclear power plant. Sadly Japan is now the victim of three gargantuan nuclear disasters: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Fukushima.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan tragically demonstrates, again, the dangers of nuclear power, an energy source that must be abandoned–as a clear and present threat to life. Instead there must be full implementation of safe, clean energy technologies — which are here today.

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space has long challenged the use of atomic energy in space. The network has emphasized that there are safe alternatives to energize space devices. In recent times, NASA, at long last, has begun substituting solar energy for nuclear power in space. Indeed, in coming months NASA’s solar-powered Juno spacecraft will be launched on a five-year mission to Jupiter. It was not long ago that NASA emphatically insisted that solar power could not substitute for nuclear beyond the orbit of Mars. Suddenly, it now can be done.

Likewise, as numerous studies have documented, safe, clean, renewable energy technologies now here can provide all the power we need on earth. Nuclear power and its deadly dangers are unnecessary. As the conservative scientific magazine, Scientific American, in its October 26, 2009 cover story, “A Plan for A Sustainable Future,” declared, “Wind, water, solar technologies, [and conservation] can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy needs.”

The issue of switching to safe, clean energy is not technological — it’s political.

The problem involves vested interests: the government agencies which push nuclear power, notably in the United States the national nuclear laboratories and the entity that owns them, the Department of Energy (headed currently by a former national nuclear laboratory director), and the nuclear industry as it seeks to profit from selling nuclear technology despite the cost in people’s lives.

These same entities are pushing nuclear power world-wide as evidenced by GE’s involvement in the construction of Japanese reactors and the recent U.S.-India Nuclear deal. China and other emerging nations are also expanding plans for nuclear power despite the horrific memories of Chernobyl and now Fukushima. …

Read in full on space4peace.org

The establishment of a missile system on the European soil remains an issue in Russia’s talks with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, despite an agreement on the matter between the country and the United States. It seems like earlier optimism is fading into despair, following the two countries’ proposal for cooperation in the field.

Russia and the US have disagreed over the recent years on the aggressive plan, which was tabled during George W. Bush’s presidency under the pretext of confronting alleged threats posed by Iran and North Korea. Based on the project, advanced radar, capable of covering a 6,000-kilometer radius, was supposed to be based in the Czech Republic, complementing the US ones in Alaska and California while interceptor missiles were to be deployed to Poland.

Taking over from Bush, Barak Obama tried to moderate the Russo-American ties as part of his ‘policy of change’ by suspending the missile plan. Two years on, in November 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed Moscow’s cooperation with the project during NATO’s summit in Lisbon, Portugal.

His ambitious proposal was met with stiff resistance on the part of the senior military officials, but Kremlin’s foreign policy establishment went along, enjoying the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense’s support. However, according to Russian press, cooperation towards a joint project, which can contribute to the main plan, has faced fundamental problems. The question now is what the setbacks are and which course of action would Obama take. Russian press say the commander-in-chief has proposed the new four-phase plan, examination of whose details expose the depth to the impediments. …

Read on: www.presstv.ir/detail/174740.html