This article appears in the January 15, 2016 issue
of Executive Intelligence Review.
Mike Billington
Obama Escalates War
Confrontation with
China Over North Korean Nuclear Test
by Carl
Osgood
[PDF
version of this article]
Jan. 11—On
Jan. 6, 2016, the government of North Korea announced that it had carried out a
successful nuclear test at its facility in Punggye-ri, in a remote area in the
northeast of the country, and that the test had been successful in detonating a
miniaturized hydrogen bomb.
The issue
before us is not the North Korean test. The only real strategic consideration is
how that test will be used by the Obama Administration and its British Imperial
controllers, to justify further provocations against China, further escalating
the ongoing provocations designed to bring the world to a thermonuclear World
War III.
The North
Korean test comes in the context of the violent implosion of the trans-Atlantic
financial system. The British Empire has no intention, as EIR
Editor-in-Chief Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly warned, of letting Asia or any
other part of the planet survive that financial collapse. “The point is the
intention of the British system, and it is the British system from the top down,
and the system that is the cause of this process” of collapse, LaRouche said in
remarks to colleagues on Jan. 5. “Now we have the case, in terms of Britain, and
the British system setting up a global mass killing of the human
population.”
DoD/Glenn Fawcett
U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, then Deputy
Secretary, meeting with the South Korean Defense Minister Kim Byung-kwan
(right) in March 2013. The Obama Administration agenda then, as now, was
to push South Korea to join in the missile defense “ring around
China.”
|
In reaction
to the North Korean test, the immediate response from the Obama Administration
was to blame China for it. On Jan. 7, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and then personally appeared in the State
Department press briefing room. Kerry declared that he had warned Wang that
China’s go-soft approach to influencing North Korea had proven a failure:
“Today, in my conversation with the Chinese, I made it clear that [their
approach] has not worked and we cannot continue business as usual.”
China
responded angrily to Kerry’s suggestion the following day. Speaking at a press
conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated: “The
origin and crux of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula has never been
China.” China’s Global Times, owned by the Communist Party’s
People’s Daily, took an even tougher stance which was described by the
New York Times as a “fiery rebuttal.” The Global Times
editorial stated that “in no way will China bear the responsibilities that the
U.S., South Korea and Japan should take. . . . The hostilities between them and
Pyongyang are actually the source of the nuclear problems. The China-North Korea
relationship should not be dragged into antagonism.”
Upping the Nuclear
Ante
On Jan. 10,
four days after the North Korean test, a U.S. B-52 strategic bomber was flown
1,900 miles, from Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam, to South Korea.
There it was joined by four fighter aircraft to conduct flyovers and maneuvers
near the Osan Air Force Base, a U.S. base in South Korea only 48 miles from the
demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas.
Although U.S.
officials refused to divulge whether the B-52 was carrying nuclear armaments,
the aircraft is normally equipped with twelve AGM-86 air-launched nuclear cruise
missiles, with yields of up to 150 kilotons each. The bomber is also normally
equipped with a wide variety of conventional weapons, including up to fifty-one
500-pound unguided bombs, ten laser-guided bombs, or eight Harpoon anti-ship
missiles. The fact that the B-52 is a nuclear capable aircraft, and was directly
deployed on the North Korean border, is seen not only as a direct threat to
North Korea, but to China as well.
These actions
also come in a context where U.S. and South Korean defense officials have been
in discussions about the further deployment of U.S. “strategic assets” to South
Korea, likely to include an aircraft carrier (the USS Ronald Reagan is in port
in Yokosuka, Japan), F-22 stealth fighters, and submarines. The United States is
also pressuring Seoul to accept military deployments that it has resisted, for
reasons of its relationship with China. The Korea Herald reported that
the North’s nuclear test could be used as a catalyst to strengthen the bilateral
cooperation between the United States and Japan, and incorporate South Korea
into Washington’s efforts to build an anti-China integrated air and missile
defense program, or IAMD.
Additionally,
it is known that the United States has been pressuring South Korea to install an
advanced missile defense asset, called the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD), the ultimate target of which would be China.
On its part,
the government of North Korea responded to the flyover by saying that it was an
action destined to send the United States and North Korea to the “edge of war.”
It should also be kept in mind that memories of the Korean War, when the North
Korean capital of Pyongyang was “flattened” and almost completely destroyed by
American bomber aircraft, are still very much alive in the minds of today’s
North Korean leadership.
Some Cowardly, War-Mad
Generals
Some elements
of the senior leadership of the U.S. military are eagerly playing along with the
provocations against Russia and China, unlike the former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey and his team, who fought them. On Jan. 5, Chief of
Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson issued a paper advertised as his
“blueprint for a stronger Navy,” in which procuring a new fleet of
ballistic-missile submarines is identified as his number one
priority.
“This is
foundational to our survival as a nation,” Richardson’s paper claims. “From a
security standpoint in this day and age, a world-class nuclear capability” is
required to be considered a great power, he told the Associated Press in a Dec.
31 interview. Without it, “we could be threatened or coerced by another nation
who could hold this nuclear threat over our heads,” he added. “If we don’t
reconstitute the undersea leg” of the nuclear triad, “then we’re not even at the
table to discuss world affairs as a great power.”
The plan to
replace the existing fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with
twelve new boats, expected to begin entering service in the 2025 time-frame, is
one part of a larger plan, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost
about $325 billion over 30 years. The plan includes a new bomber for the U.S.
Air Force along with a new cruise missile, as well as replacement of the Air
Force’s fleet of Minuteman ICBMs.
Further
excerpts from Richardson’s plan are illuminating:
For the
first time in 25 years, the United States is facing a return to great power
competition. Russia and China both seek to be global powers. Their goals are
backed by a growing arsenal of high-end warfighting capabilities, many of
which are focused specifically on our vulnerabilities, and are increasingly
designed from the ground up to leverage the maritime, technological, and
information systems.
Richardson
states that one issue he wants to focus on is “gray warfare,” an area that falls
between peace and full armed conflict. It typically involves some aggression or
use of force, but is deliberately ambiguous in nature, “just below the level of
conflict.”
On the NATO
Front
In Europe,
General Philip Breedlove, commander of NATO and of U.S. European Command issued
his own provocation in remarks as reported on Jan. 7. In comments to reporters
in Stuttgart, Germany, Breedlove complained that the United States has “hugged
the bear” for too long, and it’s time to recognize that we are dealing with a
revanchist Russia with aggressive tendencies. Breedlove met with Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford when Dunford was in Stuttgart a couple
of days before, and these remarks appear to have been made shortly after that
meeting.
U.S. Air Force/Michael J. Pausic
Gen. Philip Breedlove, Commander of the U.S. European
Command and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, speaking at an
Air Force Association meeting in 2014.
|
In what can
only be described as wartime propaganda, Breedlove lied that it was Russian
President Vladimir Putin who explicitly rejected the outstretched hand of
friendship of the United States, stating: “What I would offer is that if you
look at Russia’s actions all the way back to ’08—in Georgia, in
Nagorno-Karabakh, in Crimea, in the Donbass, and now down in Syria—we see what
most call a revanchist Russia that has put force back on the table as an
instrument of national power to meet their objectives.”
Breedlove
also complained that the U.S. “force posture” in Europe has declined. He is now
advocating a more “robust” U.S. military presence in Europe. He noted that the
Army has begun deploying a brigade-sized unit to the region, along with 200 M1
Abrams tanks and additional vehicles and weapons.
Breedlove’s
ravings were actually contradicted by the semi-official analysis issued by the
U.S. Army’s Military Review in its most recent issue, released on Dec.
31. That issue published the full transcript of Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, as well as an article by
Russian Chief of the General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov on the nature of future
warfare, accompanied by an analysis by Charles K. Bartles, a Russian language
specialist at the Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.
Lunatics like
Breedlove have pointed to Gerasimov’s article as proof of an operational Russian
doctrine of “hybrid warfare,” but in his analysis, Bartles refutes that notion,
and demonstrates that what Gerasimov was actually describing was how he sees the
future threat environment, a threat environment that includes NATO expansion,
U.S.-led wars of regime change and so-called color revolutions.
The Seat of
Responsibility
It is crystal
clear that, whatever the line-up is of U.S. military leaders going along with
the Obama Administration’s war provocations against China and Russia, this
situation only exists because the United States Congress, which has the
responsibility to defend the U.S. Constitution against an out-of-control
executive, has failed miserably in its Constitutional obligations.
It is
cowardice, and cowardice alone, which is preventing members of Congress from
taking action to remove President Obama from office either by impeachment or by
invoking the 25th
Amendment. Squirm as they might, the escalating threat of global warfare is
a product of their own cowardice. Unless some of them decide to act, and soon,
they will probably all find themselves dead some fine day, along with most of
the rest of us. And with no Internet to tell them that Obama has just launched
thermonuclear war.
No comments:
Post a Comment