Date:         Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:40:47 -0800
Reply-To:     Ari Ollikainen <Ari@OLTECO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Ari Ollikainen <Ari@OLTECO.COM>
Subject:      Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon.
Comments: To: JKrevnov@AOL.COM
In-Reply-To:  <7f.22a3f040.29bbc2a1@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

At 2:55 PM -0500 3/9/02, Rico Sapolich wrote:
>Oh what strange days.  I recall Rumfield's words early on: something to the
>effect that we do not know who the enemy is, where the theater will be and we
>do not have a timeline, BUT WE ARE GOING TO WAR!  Hallelujah!  War sweet war.
> Someone once said to be loved by the Great Unwashed, all a leader has to do
>is to create some horror, real or imagined, from which to deliver them.  It
>is starting to appear that this "War on Terrorism" may have the hypnotic
>power to justify anything.


        Especially alarming is the most recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) as
        described in
        http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-arkinmar10.story

        Here's a key part:
        "...
        The NPR coins the phrase "New Triad," which it describes as comprising
        the "offensive strike leg," (our nuclear and conventional forces) plus
        "active and passive defenses,"(our anti-missile systems and other
        defenses) and "a responsive defense infrastructure" (our ability to
        develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing).
        Previously, the nuclear "triad" was the bombers, long-range
        land-based missiles and submarine-launched missiles that formed the
        three legs of America's strategic arsenal.

        [...]

        It calls for "a new strike system" using four converted Trident
        submarines, an unmanned combat air vehicle and a new air-launched
        cruise missile as potential new weapons.

        [...]

        Bush administration officials stress that the development and
        integration of nonnuclear capabilities into the nuclear force is what
        permits reductions in traditional long-range weaponry. But the
        blueprint laid down in the review would expand the breadth and
        flexibility of U.S. nuclear capabilities.

        In addition to the new weapons systems, the review calls for
        incorporation of "nuclear capability" into many of the conventional
        systems now under development. An extended-range conventional cruise
        missile in the works for the U.S. Air Force "would have to be
        modified to carry nuclear warheads if necessary." Similarly, the F-35
        Joint Strike Fighter should be modified to carry nuclear weapons "at
        an affordable price."

        The review calls for research to begin next month on fitting an
        existing nuclear warhead into a new 5,000-pound "earth penetrating"
        munition.
        ..."

        as well as the original story in the LA Times

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story

        wherein the following excerpt:

        "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons,
        when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs,
        president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very
        dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the
        Pentagon."


>What is particularly scary to me is that over the past few years I gotten to
>know the guys who were fighting the "War on Drugs" (but not on snow days or
>when their kids had a soccer game or any Federal holiday or on rainy
>Mondays...) who are now assigned to our new threat.  Believe me, you can
>count on them to calculate how many minutes of service it takes to retire
>from the government, but there are two things you do NOT want to depend on
>them to protect: your Constitution or your ass.
>

        You might already know that former General Barry McCaffrey, President
        Clinton's "Drug Czar", spent close to $20 BILLION per year of our tax
        money on the "War on Drugs". The interesting part being how little of
        that money actually went to treat addiction versus the DEA's little
        war on the drug suppliers and interdiction of the supply lines.




  _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
  You can't depend on your judgement when your imagination is out of focus.
                                                          -- Mark Twain.
  _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

        OLTECO                    Ari Ollikainen
        P.O. BOX 20088            Networking Architecture and Technology
        Stanford, CA              Ari@OLTECO.com
        94309-0088                415.517.3519