America is vulnerable to nuclear attack from
Russia and President Clinton wants to keep it that way. If you don't
believe this, consider what the Clinton administration did last week.
Clinton directed top Pentagon officials to meet with Russia's foreign
minister, Igor Ivanov. The purpose of the meeting was to allay Russian
fears regarding a proposed U.S. missile defense system. Ivanov was told
that Clinton's missile defense program, a pale mockery of President
Reagan's SDI proposal, did not intend to protect the United States from
Russian nuclear missiles. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon team explained to
Ivanov, in exact terms, how the Russian General Staff could defeat
America's latest anti-missile technology in a future nuclear war.
But this is not all that was offered to the Russian foreign minister.
Clinton's Pentagon told Ivanov that American tax dollars could be used to
strengthen Russia's missile defenses. Specifically, America would build an
early-warning radar system in Siberia for the Russian General Staff.
America would also help Russia put up satellites for monitoring U.S.
missile launches. More than that, America would allow Russian personnel
free access to America's missile defense radars.
On the surface it appears that President Clinton was making a good
faith gesture. In reality, however, he was compromising the defense of the
United States while offering aid and comfort to our national enemy. As
recent events show, the Kremlin is using the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
of 1972 as a political sledgehammer with which to bludgeon the good name
of the United States. While Moscow cheats on the ABM Treaty, the U.S.
desire to change the treaty is viciously interpreted as proof of evil
intentions.
But Russia is the country that harbors evil intentions.
Consider an incident which occurred in mid April, during a closed
session of the Russian Parliament. On that occasion, President Vladimir
Putin stunned the assembled legislators by warning that any Russian
citizen in contact with foreigners "outside the framework of official
duties" could be subjected to criminal prosecution.
Sadly, Russian democracy is a sham, which serves to hide Soviet era
structures. These structures control the country from behind the scenes.
It is a sad fact, but the Cold War did not end. The danger of war between
Russia and America has not passed. And Clinton has no business telling
Russia how it can defeat a U.S. missile defense system.
It is time to wake up. A career KGB officer and former chief of the
secret police -- Vladimir Putin -- has been elected to the Russian
presidency. About this event, the Business Editor of the Moscow Times
wrote: "Russia's presidential election[s] were a farcical show that
stripped the people of all but a few remaining democratic rights."
America has got to come to terms with Russia's deceptive appearance. We
have to get past the propaganda and deal with the facts at hand. Russia is
a country that has been preparing for World War III for 45 years. Consider
the size and nature of the effort involved: In the mid-1970s U.S.
intelligence satellites revealed massive underground constructions in
Russia. According to Major General George Keegan, former chief of U.S. Air
Force intelligence, there were "incredible photographs of civil defenses
of all types going up all over the Soviet Union."
In the 39 largest cities of the former USSR every apartment house built
after 1955 had a nuclear blast and fallout shelter built into the
foundation. Every new factory also had a shelter system. Underneath Moscow
there were 75 huge underground command posts, each one as large as the
Pentagon. According to Gen. Keegan, these were protected from nuclear
assault by four hundred feet of earth fill and a hundred feet of
reinforced concrete. Huge storage containers were also detected by USAF
intelligence These contained water and diesel fuel.
Besides passive defenses like blast shelters and bunkers, Russia built
a national missile defense system -- in direct violation of the ABM
Treaty. But Russian disinformation has fooled Western intelligence
agencies and Western politicians. For example, many of Russia's surface to
air missiles (SAMs) can be converted to antiballistic missiles (ABMs).
Despite the CIA's inability to admit this politically inconvenient fact,
in October 1995 a leading Russian military journal (Armeyskiy Sbornik, No.
10, 1995) discussed the subject of transforming SAMs to ABMs. According to
Col. V. Sayenko, in an article entitled "A Counterbalance to
Intimidators," Russian SA-5 and SA-10 missiles were designed as
dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. There are literally thousands of these weapons in
Russia today. Yet President Clinton does not complain of Russian
violations. Instead, he seeks to appease the Russians on arms control
matters.
Clinton's national missile defense, like Russian democracy, is a sham.
The ABM Treaty is totally unfair and should be set aside. As noted above,
Civil defenses are well developed in Russian cities, while American cities
have almost no civil defense. This is a terrible position for our country
to be in. But additional asymmetries appear when Russian treaty violations
are taken into account.
America is in an ugly situation. Russia's leaders wish to hold a loaded
gun to our heads (in the form of nuclear missiles). They don't care about
making a better life for their own people. They only want to disarm the
United States. This is obvious from the entire previous history of Russia
vis-a-vis arms control. But Bill Clinton is willing to go along with the
Russians. He wants to keep America vulnerable to a Russian attack. That's
the kind of person he is.
It is entirely possible that Bill Clinton's presidency will fascinate
future historians. This won't be on account of the sex scandals that
receive so much attention today. It will not be due to Clinton's affair
with Monica or the impeachment trial. Crimes and adultery will not
interest future generations as much as Clinton's determination to prevent
the U.S. from building a strong national missile defense.
Of course, Bill Clinton doesn't like the idea of a missile defense
system -- even the bogus one under discussion. In all probability he has
given lip service to this idea as a way of opposing the real thing.
Perhaps fearing that a bogus ABM defense is easily converted into
something effective, Clinton may postpone his decision on ABM
indefinitely.
On this issue Americans need to ask themselves two questions: Should we
remain vulnerable to Russia forever? And if so, to what end?